Guantanamo Bay Aff – HSSB
1AC – Policy
Plan
Guantanamo Bay is still open – no closure coming
Herb, 12 (Jeremy, staff writer for the The Hill covering defense and national security, Obama faces long odds to close
Guantánamo Bay if he tries again, 10/21/12 03:00 PM ET, Online, http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/263125obama-faces-long-odds-to-close-gitmo-if-he-tries-again-, accessed 7/27/13) PE
Congressional Republicans are skeptical the president was serious about a renewed attempt to close Gitmo. Rather, they
suggest he was playing to his liberal supporters in the runup to the election. ¶ “It’s something he’s saying to appeal to
his base,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill in an interview.¶ Ayotte, who has been one of the most outspoken
Republicans on detention issues, said there was little support in either Congress or public opinion to close the facility and bring
terrorists onto U.S. soil.¶ “There’s no way that [the administration’s efforts to close Guantánamo] are
going to be greater than his first term,” she said. “I don’t see this as something he’s suddenly going to be able to turn
around.”¶ Obama’s pledge to shutter the Guantánamo Bay military prison was one of his biggest campaign promises in 2008,
and he signed an executive order his first week in office to close the military facility on Cuban
soil.¶ Stewart’s question, in fact, used the same phrase that Obama did at the executive order signing ceremony. ¶ But in the face of
fierce opposition in Congress from Republicans, Obama backed away from his attempts to close the facility
and move the terrorism trials from military commissions into federal courts.¶ Pre-trial hearings for Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind who the Obama administration wanted to try in downtown Manhattan, resumed
this week at Guantánamo Bay.¶ House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said that bipartisan opposition prevented
the administration from closing the prison when Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress.¶ “If he wants to try again,
that is his choice,” McKeon, who has helped lead GOP efforts to block transfers of Gitmo detainees in the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), said in a statement to The Hill.¶ “I'd suggest that he precede the request with developing a
comprehensible and consistent policy for detaining and interrogating terrorists,” McKeon added. “No one has ever argued that
Guantanamo Bay is ideal, but before you talk about closing it you have to tell the country what you will replace it with.Ӧ An Obama
campaign official said that closing Guantánamo remains a priority for the president, and that he is committed to closing it in a
second term.¶ The official noted that even while Gitmo remains open, the Obama administration has reduced the detainee
population. Mitt Romney supports keeping the prison open and increasing its size, the official said. ¶ Democratic aides in Congress
acknowledge it would be difficult to gain enough support to close the military prison while Republicans
retain control of the House. But they say that some traction has been made on the issue in the past year.
The United States federal government should provide technical cooperation over
the transfer of United States owned physical assets in the Republic of Cuba.
Cred
Advantage 1 is Credibility
Scenario 1 is Human Rights
Failure to close Guantanamo signals US violations of Human Rights
Rosenthal 13 (Andrew, editorial director for New York Times, 1-23-13, “The High Cost
of Violating Human Rights”, http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/the-highcost-of-violating-human-rights/?_r=0)
It used to be that the United Nations human rights commission denounced violations in some of the
nastiest parts of the world – sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa, junta-dominated Latin American countries, Communistoccupied Europe. These days, that office denounces the United States. That’s what happens when you
operate a prison on the margins of the law and justice, where people are held without trial, on
tainted evidence, without consideration for their rights under international treaties or the laws of
the nation that built the prison. On Monday, the U.N. human rights chief, Navi Pillay, issued a statement
condemning the Obama administration for failing to live up to its commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay
detention center. It was President George W. Bush, of course, who established the camp and claimed that its unfortunate inmates
were not covered by United States law. The Supreme Court made short work of that nonsense. (It’s always puzzled me that Mr.
Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sought legal refuge on an island that is owned by the Cuban Communists, of all people.) But
under President Obama the United States has “entrenched a system of arbitrary detention.” By that, Ms. Pillay meant the utterly
unnecessary amendments that were added to the military budget bill last year by a shabby alliance of hard-right Republicans and
weak-kneed Democrats. They enshrined in law the idea of indefinite detention without rights. There is a lot of arguing about whether
that law allows the military detention of American citizens. I think it does. A lot of very smart lawyers have told me I’m right, others
have said that I’m wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that it sets up that possibility for a president less concerned about due
process and justice than President Obama. Ms. Pillay also said she was “disturbed at the failure to ensure
accountability for serious human rights violations, including torture, that took place” at
Guantanamo Bay—meaning President Obama’s decision at the start of the administration not to “look backward” at the illegal
activities of the Bush administration.
Failure to close Guantanamo spills over to undermine overall Human Rights
credibility
Massimino 13(Elisa, President of Human Rights First, 5-1-2013, New York Daily News, “On Guantanamo, Obama must act
now”, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gitmo-obama-act-article-1.1331445#commentpostform)
Guantanamo is a stain on the nation and a national security problem —
Obama doesn’t have to, and shouldn’t, wait for the results of any review to act. His immediate leadership could both end the
hunger strike and begin to remove the Guantanamo albatross from around the nation’s neck. As Rep. Buck
While his renewed commitment is welcome —
McKeon (R-Calif.) noted last week, Obama has power he’s not using. The security and intelligence agencies have cleared 86 of Guantanamo’s 166 prisoners for transfer. The
President could send them home or to third countries as long as the secretary of defense issues waivers outlining how the government would substantially mitigate potential
security risks. Toward this same end, Obama should lift the self-imposed moratorium on transferring detainees to Yemen, the home country of more than half of those cleared
for transfer. Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to the White House offering to “help the administration
transition each of the 86 ‘cleared’ detainees.” She pointed out that the President needs to name someone to oversee the transfers. Ideally, that someone would be a prominent,
The hunger strike makes the need to act even more
urgent. A hundred people are starving themselves, almost two-thirds of the prison’s population. The government is force-feeding 21 people and sent 40 additional Navy
medical specialists to Gitmo over the weekend. This humanitarian problem is also a strategic one, as evidenced by
recent protests at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, calling for release of the hunger strikers.
Their deaths would increase the damage that this site and symbol of human rights abuses has
already done to the reputation of the U.S. By beginning to transfer those who have been cleared. , Obama could resolve the
immediate crisis The military’s Muslim adviser at Guantanamo, in fact, has suggested the transfer of just one detainee might allow the strikers to step back from
the ledge. Obama could then proceed to tackle the deeper problem. The horrors highlighted by the hunger strike long predate it : They’re inherent to
Guantanamo, which should never have been opened in the first place. Imprisonment without trial for some prisoners, unjust military
commissions for others: U.S. leadership on human rights erodes with every day the prison stays open. The most
well-regarded figure with a track record of solving high-profile problems.
difficult problem standing in the way of closure is the group of prisoners whom the U.S. is unwilling to try, presumably because it lacks sufficient admissible evidence. After
releasing those who have been cleared, the Obama administration should consider the remaining prisoners for transfer. In fact, the President promised to do just that: He’s
missed his own deadline to establish review boards for those being held without charge or trial by more than a year.
In facing up to this problem,
Obama might also want to consider his legacy. He once again spoke eloquently Tuesday about the need to close Guantanamo.
History will measure his actions against his words. “The idea that we would still maintain forever a
group of individuals who have not been tried,” he said, “is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our
interests, and it needs to stop.”
Closing Gitmo is a key first step – it signals accountability
Hilde 09 (Thomas, professor at the university of Maryland school of Public Policy, 2009, Heinrich Boll Foundation, “Beyond
Guantánamo “, http://www.boell.de/downloads/Guantanamo-Layout.pdf)
Once policy is articulated beyond the bounds of the law and moral norms, it’s difficult to discern what grounds render it an improvement on bush administration policy. even as
u.s. Attorney general eric holder unfolds his decisions on detainee policy over 2009 and perhaps beyond, these questions will remain attached to ambiguous outcomes,
underdetermined policy, and unresolved inconsistencies in the treatment of human prisoners. in other words, a reformed detainee policy goes only a short distance towards the
larger and important goal of restoring credibility through accountability. Accountability and Politics A second critical element for restoring credibility is accountability for the
closing Guantanamo and the black sites is a good first
step. Despite the complexities discussed above regarding the detainees, the prison closings demonstrate a
presumptive respect for the rule of law and for the public moral element of accountability. Yet these two strains of
torture regime undertaken through concrete measures. President Obama’s executive order
accountability — legal and public-moral accountability — do not necessarily overlap. Accountability, moreover, must take into account political context. This is not to say that
politics should take priority over law and morality. It is to raise the finer point that the purpose of genuine accountability is defeated if undertaken (or not undertaken) for political
A democratic society is defined in part by
its accountability mechanisms and the fairness of their application. But we should be very careful. Resistance to
reasons or if seriously yundermined b political upheaval or other comparable damages to a society.
investigation and accountability in the name of social unity has deep and manipulative political roots in nearly every country whose leaders have faced war crimes accusations. it
The reason for pursuing accountability is not solely retribution for
previous wrongs or, although vital, restoration of the rule of law. Accountability has a pragmatic function. it helps to
ensure that acts destructive of any human rights framework we wish to perpetuate, acts such as torture, do
not occur again. Indeed, as discussed in the concluding remarks, society reconstructs not only the rule of law but
also a more robust human rights regime through demands for and concrete steps towards
genuine accountability.
would be very tempting simply to “look ahead.”
Human rights credibility solves inevitable extinction
Copeland 99 (Rhonda, Professor of Law – NYU, New York City Law Review, p. 71-72)
The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the
international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority. Indeed, in the face of systemic
inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and
military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and
new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the
Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual
and collective human survival and betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing
collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly
affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection,
peace, and security. Given the poverty and inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it is
imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.
Scenario 2 is Torture
Treatment of detainees at Guantanamo justifies endless torture and suffering
Volha Piotukh, Edinburgh, 6 June 2008, PhD student, School of Politics and International Studies, (POLIS) The University of
Leeds, Supervisors: Dr. Deiniol Jones and Prof. Alice Hills, “Humanitarian Action and the War on Terror: Some Preliminary
Thoughts on a New Biopolitical Nexus” www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/.../Piotukh_Paper.doc DS)
I would suggest that theorising on biopower and biopolitics can provide useful insights not only at the macro, but also at the micro
level, as particular practices can also be ‘read’ biopolitically, including what euphemistically was
termed ‘detention and interrogation techniques’ in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I believe that what matters
most for such a reading is not the torture as such, or the persistent denial of such facts by the U.S. Administration, or the hypocrisy
of its rhetoric stressing the full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, or even the double-standards inherent in
accusing other countries of resorting to torture and similar practices, but the fact that torture has become legitimised
and even subject to regulation. Referring to Foucault’s concept of biopower as a power that fosters life or disallows it to
the point of death, Wadiwel suggests that it “can (…) capture and subject life, for an indefinite duration, to a
measured violence (…) In this violence – a frictional violence – the sovereign reveals a
commitment to life, a life whose time is measured by pain” (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). Torture, therefore,
can be considered as an ugly form of life preservation. A torturer has to maintain life, to not let death prevent the
continued infliction of pain, which can become life long (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 117). Thus, the Nazi ‘Protective Custody’ directive of
October 26, 1939 contained the following condition: (..) the duration of detention in a concentration camp must always be indicated
as ‘indefinite’” (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). The detainees of detention camps scattered all over the world, share
the same fate, as they have been promised release only upon cessation of GWOT, which, as we
know, is a war with imprecise objectives, and no definite end. This indefinite detention itself becomes a form of
torture. Agamben’s theorising can also provide useful insights. For example, the tortured were those categorised as ‘unlawful’ or
‘enemy’ combatants – terms unknown in international law. These definitions allowed the U.S. Administration to deprive these people
of the protection provided by either IHL or human rights law. Moreover, they could not appeal to the U.S. national courts as, given
the location of the camps, the courts would not have jurisdiction to consider appeals of foreigners captured and held abroad. Thus,
these people were turned into Homo Sacer, stripped of anything that could stand between them
and the torturer as a personification of bio-power, caught in the state of exception where law does
not apply in any other way than by no longer applying. Anything becomes possible, including the
decisions that practices that ‘only’ amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading can be tolerated,
anything up to the point when “tortured are finally left with nothing but their own living being, felt
only through an endless suffering” (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 120).
Failure to close Guantanamo Bay signals US endorsement of torture – that spills
over to justify torture elsewhere
Lithwick 8 (Dahlia Lithwick, contributing editor at Newsweek and senior editor at Slate. B.A in English from Yale, J.D. in law
from Stanford. “A Guantanamo Homecoming.” Daily Beast 10 October 2008. Web.)
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/10/a-guant-namo-homecoming.html EW
What happens at Gitmo, stays at Gitmo. That was always the hope. When the Bush administration fenced off
a dusty little patch of lawlessness in Cuba, the idea was that breaking the law abroad would somehow
preclude us from breaking it at home. But last week revealed—yet again—that the worst of Guantánamo
was always destined to spill over into the United States. Gitmo's lawlessness is now our own. The prison camp
was created to construct a "legal black hole," a place where U.S. and international human-rights law would go to die. The case
of 17 Uighurs—Chinese Muslims from western China's Xinjiang region—is one of the blackest chapters of the
story. The Uighurs fled Chinese persecution (including forced abortion and banishment) and settled in Afghanistan. The 2001
U.S. bombing raids forced them to move to Pakistan, and they were allegedly turned over by local
villagers to American authorities in exchange for a $5,000 bounty per head. They were transferred to
Guantánamo more than six years ago and were cleared for release in 2004. The U.S. government credibly feared they
would be tortured if returned to China, and since no other country will take them, they have remained at Gitmo all this time. In
September, an appeals court found that one of the Uighurs, Huzaifa Parhat, had been labeled an "enemy combatant" and subject to
indefinite detention, based on "bare assertions." The Bush administration has conceded that none of the
Uighurs is an enemy combatant. Last week a federal judge in Washing-ton ordered that all 17
Uighurs be freed, immediately, into the care of American supporters. Bush administration officials managed to delay their
release in a last-minute petition to the appeals court. These Uighurs didn't just steam into Guantánamo Bay off a Carnival cruise.
They were brought here in error and abused in error. And now to remedy that error they will be forced to
stay there indefinitely. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a landmark Supreme Court decision this past summer, "The
costs of delay can no longer be borne by those who are held in custody." The Justice Department managed to halt the
ruling, by repeating discredited claims that the Uighurs associated with terrorists, and squawking about the perils of
bringing Guantánamo to Washington. But in truth, Guantánamo has been in Washington for some
time. Newly released military documents prove that two American citizens held for years as enemy
combatants at Navy brigs in Virginia and Charleston, S.C., had been interrogated and incarcerated
according to the Guantánamo rules, not U.S. law . According to e-mails that surfaced last week, Yaser Esam
Hamdi and Jose Padilla were interrogated by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency for months and years in the early
part of the war on terror, and deprived of light, correspondence and human contact , while their nervous
interrogators worried for their sanity.
Torture always outweighs
Twiss 2007(Sumner, Torture, Justification, and Human Rights: Toward an Absolute Proscription. 2007 Human Rights
Quarterly, Volume 29, Number 2)
The judgment that torture is prima facie wrong falls short of the judgment that such practices are
always wrong or that the right not to be tortured is non-derogative. At this point, we need to turn to further
subsequent developments on the proscription of torture by the international human rights community —in
the form of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which legally implemented pertinent articles of the
UDHR), the 1975 Declaration on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, and the
1984 Convention against such practices.24 The 1966 convention expressly states that no
derogation can be made from the article proscribing torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading
treatment or punishment, including for reasons of exigency in time of public emergency that
threaten the life of a nation. The 1975 declaration avers that no state may permit or tolerate such practices and, further,
that exceptional circumstances, such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency,
may not be invoked as a justification for such practices. The 1984 convention defines torture as: [A]ny act by which
severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has
committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason
based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the
consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 25 It also rules out any
exceptional justifying circumstances whatsoever and adds that an order from a superior officer
may not be invoked.
Scenario 3 is Soft Power
Maintaining Guantanamo undermines U.S. soft Power in the Squo
Wagner 9 (Coleman Wagner Coleman Wagner is a senior at the University of North Texas majoring in political science. His
studies focus on international relations and comparative government and politics with minors in Spanish and business
management. He is highly involved in youth ministry and spent the summer facilitating high school mission trips on the Red Lake
Native American Reservation in Northern Minnesota. Coleman will graduate in December 2009 and plans to pursue a Ph.D. He
aspires to a teaching and research career in political science at the university level. “Soft Power and International Public Opinion:
U.S Presidents and the Treatment of Prisoners of War” http://web3.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/wpcontent/2009/08/Wagner_Coleman.pdf) SJH
During the next seven years, a series of memos and reports revealed the use of enhanced
interrogation techniques by CIA interrogators. Several reports exchanged between the U.S. Attorney General‟s
office and the White House attempted to define torture and decipher whether or not enhanced
interrogation techniques fell under the classification of torture. One memo written by the Deputy Assistant
Attorney General specifically states, “We conclude that those treaties [the Geneva Conventions] do not protect members of Al
Qaeda and the Taliban militia” (Bybee, 2002, p. 1). President Bush confirmed the Deputy Assistant‟s conclusion, deciding not to
apply the Geneva Convention to members of Al Qaeda because itwas not a state actor nor did it sign the Geneva Convention
(Bush, 2002). According to the Department of Justice‟s Office of Legal Council (OLC), enhanced interrogation techniques, when
combined or used individually, were not considered illegal under the federal anti-torture statute (Yoo, 2002). President Bush also
expanded the power of the executive branch in the detention and prosecution of terror suspects. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
gave the Attorney General the power to retain a terror suspect for an indefinite period of time without charges if he/she is
demonstrated to be a threat to the safety of U.S. citizens. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 3930) disallowed a
terror suspect, labeled an enemy combatant, the right to challenge the legality of his/her detention, commonly known as habeas
corpus. This act also established U.S. military tribunals in which enemy combatants of other nations were to be tried for their
terrorist activities against the United States. Theoretical Impact on Soft Power I expect two major issues in former
President George W. Bush‟s policy on the treatment of prisoners of war to affect the United
States‟ soft power. First, I predict a negative reaction from the international community to the
treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I predict that enhanced interrogation techniques damaged
the United States‟ reputation abroad and undercut its Soft power. The use of these techniques
exposes the United States to accusations of hypocrisy. If the international community considered
enhanced interrogation techniques to constitute torture, U.S. condemnations of torture abroad
should be seen as hollow and hypocritical. Furthermore, this perception of U.S. hypocrisy should
weaken America‟s ability to promote human rights and proper treatment of prisoners. I also predict
that the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will be seen as unlawful by the international
community. This perspective will be strengthened by the deprivation of due process
requirements in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put, America‟s refusal to apply due process
provisions of the U.S. Constitution to detainees of Guantanamo Bay will stain its image abroad.
The United States has granted to itself the right to prosecute citizens of other nations in U.S. military courts for acts of terrorism.
The international community will see this as a staunch act of unilateralism in a multilateral war on terrorism. Observed Impact on
U.S. Soft Power In regards to the first expectation, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, considered
torture by many in the international community, did spark media attention abroad. An article
coming from a rural British community claimed “the champions of freedom and democracy have
lost the moral ground by using methods of mental torture” (Riasat, 2002, ¶ 3). The Independent, a
media source based in England reported that, “the allies hold thousands of Muslims in illegal
incarceration; they are tortured and killed too” (Alibhai-Brown, 2004, ¶ 7). Phillips emphasized the immorality of
“physically and psychologically stressful methods” of interrogation despite their lack of physical contact (2004, ¶ 26). One Australian
paper discussed he idea of a torture warrant, a legal permit to carry out torture for the purpose of extracting vital information, but,
he rejected the idea, calling it a contradiction to American values (“The Torture Time Bomb,” 2005). Media coverage of
several obscure cases and issues of torture brought negative attention to the United States as well.
For example, in 2005, footage of a U.S. prison guard burning the Quran in front of a detainee infuriated
the Arab world. In protest, Iran criticized the prison and called the act “abhorrent” (Iran News Political
Desk, 2005). In 2004 and 2005, the United States was accused of prisoner “rendering,” or the act of transferring a prisoner to
another country to be tortured. One prisoner claimed to have been extradited to Egypt for torture and then
sent back to the United States for further interrogation (Fisher, 2005). In 2004, a State Department Human
Rights Report accused Myanmar of human rights violations. The report backfired on the State Department as
Myanmar released its own report of U.S. human rights violations in Guantanamo Bay ( “U.S. Has Lost
Its Moral Authority,” 2004). Even a Chinese human rights group denounced the United States, referring to
its promotion of human rights as extremely “hypocritical ” (“U.S.Human Rights Report,” 2004) International
journalism, however, was not the only source of condemnation toward Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration. In 2005,
the U.N. requested that international and American non-governmental organizations release any
and all evidence of torture and prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay (Deen, 2005). Not long before
this request, a South Asian news source claimed the U.N. needed to inspect the prison and its
detainees, unopposed by the United States (“U.S. Should Not Interfere,” 2005). As mentioned above, the most
pressing issue regarding Bush‟s policy on Guantanamo Bay seemed to be the holding of prisoners without filing charges. This
aspect of Bush‟s policy attracted major criticisms regarding the United States ‟ commitment to
international institutions, human rights, and the authenticity of its moral values. Hypocrisy seemed to be a popular
theme in reference to the United States‟ detention of terror suspects . Groves, of the Birmingham Post in
Great Britain wrote, “the cases of… prisoners in Guantanamo Bay will be highlighted as a flagrant
breach of the most basic human rights” (2003, ¶ 6). In criticizing America‟s refusal to charge some detainees in
Guantanamo, a writer for the London Times wrote, “Guantanamo makes it awkward for the U.S. to promote
democracy and respect for law without getting charges of hypocrisy” (Maddox, 2005, ¶ 4). An intense
article written by a journalist in Beirut reads, “Its actions are ensuring that the detainees are kept in their legal
limbo, denied a right that serves as a basic safeguard against arbitrary detention,
„disappearance‟ and torture, or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment” (Daily Star Staff, 2005, ¶
1). An article published in the Agence France-Presse explained the hypocrisy well; “In holding prisoners in dubious
legal circumstances… and in establishing closed military tribunals, the U.S. calls these principles
[commitment to democracy and liberty] Into question” (“Bush Seeks to Calm Arab Anger,” 2004, ¶ 7).Several media
sources accused the United States of overstepping international norms and laws. Amnesty International
accused the United States of being “more concerned with getting around international laws which prohibit torture than with
safeguarding human rights” (“U.S. „war on terror,‟” 2004, ¶ 1). Even an article in Canada, the United States‟ neighbor to the North,
refers to the U.S. as a “rogue nation” (Sundar, 2002)
Soft power is key to sustain U.S. engagement – this solves terrorism, economic
collapse, spread of disease, proliferation, and global WMD conflict
Reiss 8 (Mitchell B., Vice Provost of International Affairs – College of William & Mary, “Restoring America's Image: What the
Next President Can Do”, Survival, October, 50(5))
But first, there is another question to be answered: why should Americans care if the United States is liked or not?
After all, foreign policy is not a popularity contest. Policies that are controversial today may look better in a few years. Perhaps
America's unpopularity is just the price that must be paid for being the world's most powerful country. Yet Americans do care, and
their desire to be respected by the world has been reflected in the campaign rhetoric of both McCain and Obama. This desire
extends beyond the normal, near-universal human wish to be liked, or at least not misunderstood or hated. Americans still believe in
John Winthrop's description of America as a 'shining city on the hill' and want others to view the United States that way as well. But
there is another, larger reason for caring about the rise of anti- Americanism, one that is related to the
United States' status as the world's only superpower. No one country can defeat today's transnational
threats on its own. Terrorism, infectious disease, environmental pollution , weapons of mass destruction,
narcotics and human trafficking - all these can only be solved by states acting together. If others
mistrust the United States or actively work against it, building effective coalitions and promoting a liberal international
order that benefits both Americans and hundreds of millions of other people around the world will be far more challenging.
Ultimately, if the United States has to go it alone or bear most of the costs while others are seen as free riders, the
American people are unlikely to sustain engagement with the world with the same intensity, or even at all.
The history of the last century demonstrates that when the United States retreats from the world, bad things
happen. The United States rejected the League of Nations and turned inwards in the 1920s and 1930s, contributing to
the Great Depression and the onset of the Second World War. After the Vietnam War, a weakened and inwardlooking America prompted some Asian countries to start their own nuclear-weapons programmes,
emboldened Islamic fundamentalists to attack American interests, and encouraged the Soviet Union to occupy
Afghanistan. While there are some who say this couldn't happen today, that America couldn't pull up the drawbridge and retreat
behind the parapets, recent opinion polls in the United States reveal a preference for isolationism not seen since the end of the
Vietnam War. It is hard to imagine any scenario in which an isolated, disengaged United States would be a
better friend and ally to other countries, better promote global prosperity, more forcefully
Closing Guantanamo overcomes all their alt causes
Nye 08(Joseph, Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and Author, “Barack Obama and Soft Power” June 12,
2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-soft-pow_b_106717.html)
Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or
coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of emotional intelligence,
vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture (where it is attractive to others),
values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of
others.) Polls show that American soft power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past
eight years. Some say this is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being the biggest kid on the block. But it matters
greatly whether the big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen
as a bully as a result of the Bush Administration policies. Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number
of policy problems such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops
the ball on any of these issues, they will devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not
to let this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January
20, he will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will once again export
hope rather than fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo;
dropping the term "global war on terror;" creation of a special bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a
"listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation
that can recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about symbols
and policies for the days immediately after the election.
I-Law
Advantage 2 is I-Law
Detainees have fundamental rights under international law – the US failure to
comply causes other countries ignore them as well
Legal Information Institute 7 (The Legal Information Institute is a public service of Cornell Law School.
“Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195); Al Odah v. United States (06-1196)” December 5, 2007, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/061195)
Amici for the detainees argue that international
law entitles detainees to certain fundamental rights, even if
the Constitution does not apply to them. The International Humanitarian Law Experts ("IHLE") amicus
brief argues that the Geneva Conventions, which the United States played a lead role in drafting, are universally
accepted. The Geneva Conventions aim to "protect[] persons who do not, or who can no longer, participate in hostilities,"
including prisoners of war and civilians. The IHLE brief notes in particular Common Article 3, which protects requires a
"regularly constituted court" to provide judicial guarantees to those no longer engaged in hostilities. The failure of the United
States to follow the Geneva Conventions "weakens the entire international legal regime and invites
other signatories to disregard their own treaty obligations." By refusing to apply the Conventions to detainees, the
United States harms its ability to insist that the Conventions protect Americans detained during overseas conflicts. Other amici
argue that the United States violates international standards by withholding habeas rights from
detainees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights argues that Article 9 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") requires that detainees must have access to a court that provides
basic procedural guarantees of a fair hearing to review contest the legality of their detention. "Continued detention without
justification and review," the High Commissioner argues, is "inherently arbitrary." CSRTs do not qualify as "courts" under the ICCPR,
and they provide insufficient review. Amici maintain that the United States ratified the ICCPR and is therefore bound by
these agreed-upon international obligations.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is the only way to ensure US compliance with
international law
Human Rights Watch 13 (Human Rights Watch citing Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the Human Rights
Watch. “US: Pledges to End ‘War,’ Close Guantanamo” May 24, 2013, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/24/us-pledges-end-warclose-guantanamo)
In his speech, President Obama broke little new ground on the issue of prosecuting Guantanamo
detainees except to signal a plan to transfer some to the US for trials before military commissions. While moving the
commissions to the US might address some logistical concerns, it would not change the fact that they are fundamentally unfair.
Obama addressed the situation of 46 detainees who were designated by an inter-agency task force as “too dangerous” to release
but who could not be tried – in some cases, he said, because the evidence against them had been compromised or was
inadmissible in court. While Obama said he was confident this “legacy problem” could be resolved
consistent with the rule of law , he provided no indication that the 46 men would not be detained
indefinitely. If these detainees cannot be prosecuted, they should be released, Human Rights Watch said. “ Prolonged
indefinite detention without charge or trial violates international human rights law ,” Roth said. “But
Obama’s apparent plan to move detainees to the US for prosecution before discredited military commissions relocated in the US is
not the answer.” Though their rules have been rewritten three times since the military commissions were first formed in
2005, and additional procedural protections were added under Obama's presidency, they still do not meet international
fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said. Among other flaws, the commissions lack judicial independence, allow the
admission of certain coerced testimony, permit the military to hand-pick the jury pool, and fail to protect privileged attorney-client
communications. “Obama should take to heart the resounding applause to his statement that Guantanamo
should never have been opened, and close it once and for all,” Roth said. “Ending indefinite
detention, restoring the use of federal civilian courts, and acknowledging the wrong that has been
done to the men imprisoned illegally would show the president wants to close not only the
physical site of Guantanamo, but also the idea of Guantanamo.”
Strengthening International Law is key to the Middle East Peace Process
Michael Lynk, Notest for a Presentation on International Law and the Middle East conflict, CEPAL Annual Meeting, Parliament
Hill, Ottawa, November 29, 2001, p. 7. Available from the World Wide Web at:
http://www.cepal.ca/documents/OttawaSpeechNov011.pdf, accessed 1/10/05.
reliance upon the relevant principles of international law would finally create something
close to a level playing field between Israel and Palestine. Israel has a European-level economy with a GNP of around $18,000 (US) per capita,
And fourth,
an extremely powerful and wellequipped army and air force, and the world’s only superpower as its financial and military patron. The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a dismal economy with an annual per
capita GNP of around $1,300 (US) that has actually contracted by 20% since the Oslo agreement in 1993, a lightly armed police force, and no contiguous territory. As long as this ample imbalance in power
. Applying the
principles of international law, rather than the politics of power, is the essential pre-condition to ensuring a level
playing field at the Middle East negotiating table, and a level playing field is the essential precondition to arriving at a fair and lasting peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.
politics is the guiding force in peace-making, then we are going to see political agreements that are not only one-sided, but are unworkable precisely because they are so onesided
Now is key for the Peace Process – talks can succeed
Bratu 7-19 (Becky, NBC News Editor, Graduate of Columbia School of Journalism, “Kerry Says Israel, Palestinians Laid
Groundwork For New Peace Talks,” MSNBC, 2013, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/19/19559453-kerry-says-israelpalestinians-laid-groundwork-for-new-peace-talks?lite)
AMMAN, Jordan -- Secretary of State John
Kerry announced Friday that Israel and the Palestinians have
laid the groundwork to resume stalled peace talks. Addressing reporters before he flew back from the Jordanian
capital of Amman, Kerry announced "an agreement that establishes a basis for resuming direct final
status negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis." Peace talks broke down in 2010. He
said his negotiating counterparts will join him in Washington, D.C. next week or "shortly thereafter," but that he will be the one
making public comments on behalf of the whole group. "The representatives of two proud people today have
decided that the difficult road ahead is worth traveling ," he added. On his visit, Kerry had marathon talks with
Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas - including a stop Friday in Ramallah. Kerry also met Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in
Amman and had been consulting Israeli officials by telephone, a U.S. official said. The Palestinian leadership on Thursday
did not accept Kerry's latest plan, but signaled that it was leaving the door open for him to continue
pushing for talks. "This is a significant and welcome step forward," Kerry said Friday upon making his announcement.
Negotiations, which have ebbed and flowed over two decades, collapsed in late 2010 in a dispute
over Israeli settlement building in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories it
captured in the 1967 Middle East war.
Peace Process is key to avoid Mideast War – US credibility is key
Elsner, 13 -- former Reuters chief political correspondent
[Alan, 30-years’ experience in international journalism, former Reuters State Department correspondent, former professor at
Princeton, Dartmouth, American and George Washington University, "Conditions Not Perfect for Israeli-Palestinian Peace -- But
May Be as Good as They'll Get," Huffington Post, 7-17-13, www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-elsner/israel-palestine-peaceprocess_b_3606126.html, accessed 7-18-13, mss]
To those who argue that Israel should not make peace with Arab nations because they are insufficiently democratic, the obvious
response is that precisely the reverse is true. Only through peace treaties, endorsed and enshrined by the international
community, can Israel hope to achieve security and predictability in its relations with its neighbors .
Some of the same doubters who bring up Egypt also argue that Kerry is misspending his time in pursuing an
Israeli-Palestinians peace deal because there are so many other issues that are more important
clamoring for his attention. They are also dead wrong for many reasons. As Kerry realizes, solving this
conflict is a prime U.S. national security interest because it is used by our enemies worldwide as a
recruiting tool for terrorists and to stoke anti-American feeling and because it undermines our efforts to
champion political rights and the cause of democracy and self-determination around the world. Unlike Egypt and Syria,
this is the one issue where the U.S. has the leverage and ability to actually play a constructive
role . The civil war in Syria and unrest in Egypt are both very important -- but it is not clear what the U.S. can or should do and
how much influence it can exert. However,
on Israel-Palestine, the U.S. remains the indispensible broker
with enormous influence on both parties and a clear policy -- namely the two-state solution. Securing IsraeliPalestinian peace would inject some stability into an unstable region. It would strengthen
moderates, bolster the vulnerable government of Jordan, a key U.S. strategic ally, weaken Iran and its allies
and proxies and pave the way for relations between Israel and the important Gulf States. It would
springboard the Palestinian economy and act as a driver for economic activity throughout the Mid dle East,
eventually boosting Egypt too. Without viable peace talks, the status quo could quickly fall apart ;
instability will grow between Israel and the Palestinians, heightening the threat of violence in the West Bank
and a new crisis between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Now may not be the perfect time -- but tomorrow is likely to be worse
and the next day worse still. This may be the best chance we still have. Finally, although it is a tough task, it is not impossible
and there are some reasons for cautious optimism. Both Israelis and Palestinians continue to support
two states as recent polls have again demonstrated. Kerry's indirect negotiations have been
substantive and have narrowed gaps between the parties forming a better framework for talks than in
some past efforts . And neither side wants to be blamed for failure. It's easy to find excuses not to make peace
but that attitude achieves nothing. Working for peace is harder, no doubt, but the rewards are so great that it would be criminal not
to try.
Mid-east wars cause extinction
Russell, 9 (James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate School, ‘9 (Spring) “Strategic
Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East” IFRI, Proliferation Papers//,
#26, __http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf__)
Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining
framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that
introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible
assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining
framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for
military action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Iran’s response to pre-emptive attacks could
involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a
communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These
systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could
happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance.
Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a conflict could quickly escalate in which
the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a
mistake to believe the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable
strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war – a war in
which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a
momentum all their own and decision-making would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community
must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an
unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire world.
CMR
Advantage 3 is CMR
CMR is on the brink – peacetime cooperation will be key to long term CMR
Tilghman, 13 (Andrew, Staff Writer, “JCS chief: Time to rethink civil-military relations,” Jul. 12, 2013, Navy Times, cites
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Online,
http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130712/NEWS05/307120023/JCS-chief-Time-rethink-civil-military-relations, accessed 7/17/13)
PE
The nation’s top military officer is urging troops to brace for a postwar era in which the
relationship between the military and the civilian population it is sworn to protect will change in fundamental
ways. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey offered a rare public reflection on the cultural link between the all-volunteer force and civilian
society and sought to dispel stereotypes that have arisen since 2001. “Together, we need to discuss who we are and
what our wars mean to us,” Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote in a July 3 op-ed in The Washington Post.
His office subsequently provided essentially the same piece to Military Times. “Now is the defining moment in our
relationship with the 9/11 veterans,” Dempsey wrote, urging the country to gain a better understanding of who those
returning warriors are as individuals. “All of us in uniform volunteered to serve, but that doesn’t make us all heroes. Many of us have
seen the horrors of war, but that doesn’t make us all victims. Today’s warriors and their stories are more diverse than these simple
characterizations suggest.” Dempsey’s call for a national discussion comes at a challenging time for civilmilitary relations, according to several experts, career officers and others who spoke to Military Times. In Washington, a fierce
debate is in full swing about the future of defense spending that could veer into a bitter battle over pay and benefits for the people
who serve in uniform. Across the country, veterans are returning in large numbers, some of them struggling to adjust or suffering
from physical or psychological injuries. And as the war in Afghanistan winds down, the military may begin to lose its privileged place
in American culture. “The moral contract between the people and the military is changing. It changes after every war,” said James
Burk, a civil-military affairs expert who teaches at Texas A&M University. “I think Dempsey is taking a stand against polarization and
calling for a serious discussion about what the military community needs and how we achieve those objectives.”
Plan is key to improve CMR – the Joint Chiefs want Guantanamo to be closed
Burns, 8 (Robert, AP Military writer, Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo, January 13, 2008, Online, Huffington Post,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080113/guantanamo-joint-chiefs/#, accessed 7/23/13) PE
The chief of the U.S. military said Sunday he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible
because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been
"pretty damaging" to the image of the United States. "I'd like to see it shut down," Adm. Mike Mullen said in an
interview with three reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff last October. His visit came two days after the sixth anniversary of the prison's opening in January 2002. He
stressed that a closure decision was not his to make and that he understands there are numerous complex legal questions the
administration believes would have to be settled first, such as where to move prisoners. The admiral also noted that some of
Guantanamo Bay's prisoners are deemed high security threats. During a tour of Camp Six, which is a high-security facility
holding about 100 prisoners, Mullen got a firsthand look at some of the cells; one prisoner glared at Mullen through his narrow cell
window as U.S. officers explained to the Joint Chiefs chairman how they maintain almost-constant watch over each prisoner.
Poor civil-military relations would erode effectiveness of US military
Kohn, Prof. of History and Chair of the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina, and
Feaver ,Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies,
2001 (Richard H and Peter D. “Civilians and Soldiers”)
The general consensus on how capable the U.S. military is at doing what civilian society asks of it
could also mask disagreements about what sorts of problems could erode that effectiveness . The
culture gap thesis suggests that one way a civil-military gulf might threaten national security would be if
the military and civilians hold sharply divergent opinions on what hurts military effectiveness and
therefore, by implication, endorse sharply different policies for preserving the combat
effectiveness of the armed forces. Indeed, John Hillen has argued that “if [the military] goes too far in
pleasing the social mores of contemporary society, it may lose the culture needed for success in
war”(Hillen 1998a). TheTlSS survey asked respondents to indicate whether they believed civil-military alienation would
erode military effectiveness and then whether they believed certain conditions, such as
"Americans' lack of trust in the uniformed leaders" or "a ban on language and behavior that
encourage camaraderie among soldiers," were in fact occurring and if so, whether they would
hurt military effectiveness. If there is a civil-militaryconsensus on these issues, military
effectiveness might still be a matter for concern, but any problems would not be exacerbated by a
civil-military culture gap. Dissensus, however, would be evidence that a gulf between civilians and the military
threatened core values that at least some influential groups believe to be essential to the
military's ability to be effective in combat. As Figure 3.7 shows, elite military officers and elite civilians, particularly
elite civilians with no military experience, gave differing responses to the statement, "Even if civilian society did not always
appreciate the essential military values of commitment and unselfishness, our armed forces could still maintain required traditional
standards" (Question 33h). Somewhat contrary to conventional wisdom, it is the elite military that has the more optimistic view, and
it is the elite non-veteran civilians who express the greatest level of concern about the gap-even though it is their attitudes that
comprise the largest gap with the military. By contrast, a clear consensus emerges when we look at a series of responses
concerning potential threats to military effectiveness.9 Elite civilians and the elite military officers generally agree on whether a
particular problem is happening in the military today. What differences of opinion do appear are subtle and marginal, far more so
than one would expect given the ambiguity inherent in the topic: even experts have trouble agreeing on what is necessary for
military effectiveness. After a first cut, this uncertainty does not appear in the TISS survey. We cannot say conclusively
what this means, but it does suggest the optimistic finding that military effectiveness may be an
issue on which there is a healthy civil-military consensus.
Military effectiveness is key to US hegemony
International Herald Tribune 5/1/2008 (“International Hegemony”, May 1 2008,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/30oxan.php)
Wellsprings of power. US hegemonic power is exercised globally through several key institutions and mechanisms:• Economic
power. Following the Second World War, US economic dominance was so great that it was able to help reconstruct post-war
Western Europe via the Marshall Plan. Although its relative advantage has since declined, Washington continues to play a key role
in global economic affairs; its intervention helped halt the spiraling depreciation of the Mexican peso in 1994. The dollar also
remains the world's dominant reserve, or 'numeraire', currency.• Military might. US defense spending continues
massively to overshadow the military outlays of other societies. Substantial elements of the US
armed forces are still permanently based in many areas abroad. While this overseas basing is, in
part, a residue of the old Cold War security apparatus, many areas of the world welcome these
troops as the guarantors of stability and the regional balance of power.• Post-1945 legacy. The United
States had a major role in structuring post-1945 political and social systems. For example, both the German Basic Law of 1949 and
Japan's 1947 constitution reflected significant US input. Both countries were subject to US influence directly through occupation
forces, but also intellectually and culturally as their new governments operated under US-influenced constitutional systems. While
such influence is today much diminished, it has not entirely vanished.• International organizations. Washington dominates key
international organizations, notably NATO and the UN. NATO, which once had a limited collective security role centered around
defending Western Europe from a Soviet attack, is slowly moving towards an expanded 'out of area' mission under US prodding.
Despite President George Bush's occasionally confrontational stance towards the UN, the United States remains highly influential
there due to the size of its financial contribution and Security Council veto.• Aligning allies. The United States works assiduously to
promote its interests by influencing how other states align or realign. For example, it has promoted Turkey's candidacy for EU
membership, as a means of promoting political and economic reform.• Ideas and culture. US ideas and popular culture, from jazz to
art and cinema, have infectiously spread -- rendering 'Americanization' among the most significant and disputed phenomena of the
contemporary era. Americanization has its antinomy, 'anti-Americanism', and this cleavage operates globally. 'Globalization' both
overlaps with, and is distinct from, Americanization, but the two phenomena are often conjoined in political analysis and popular
discourse.
US military power is key to prevent extinction
Thomas P.M. Barnett, chief analyst, Wikistrat, “The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S. and Globalization, at Crossroads,”
WORLD POLITICS REVIEW, 3—7—11, www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-new-rules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads
Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as the
world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from risk
because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem.
Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many
experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched
by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global
order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is
something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent larger-
scale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count
stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of systemadministering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more
blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the world has
ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics that governed the 20th century, the mass
murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human
civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding
down that path of perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our
now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and
played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread
of human rights, the liberation of women, the doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and
a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered.
Please remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of
global disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is
anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might
imagine ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our
military-industrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last
great period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million
across two world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with
far more comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world
fast approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and a 99
percent relative drop in deaths due to war. We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by
multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how
things turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure, we would do well to keep U.S. power, in all
of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to come. To continue the historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil war, the U.S.
emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than colonialism. America then successfully replicated
globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.
1AC – K
Plan
Guantanamo Bay is still open – no closure coming
Herb, 12 (Jeremy, staff writer for the The Hill covering defense and national security, Obama faces long odds to close
Guantánamo Bay if he tries again, 10/21/12 03:00 PM ET, Online, http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/263125obama-faces-long-odds-to-close-gitmo-if-he-tries-again-, accessed 7/27/13) PE
Congressional Republicans are skeptical the president was serious about a renewed attempt to close Gitmo. Rather, they
suggest he was playing to his liberal supporters in the runup to the election. ¶ “It’s something he’s saying to appeal to
his base,” Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill in an interview.¶ Ayotte, who has been one of the most outspoken
Republicans on detention issues, said there was little support in either Congress or public opinion to close the facility and bring
terrorists onto U.S. soil.¶ “There’s no way that [the administration’s efforts to close Guantánamo] are
going to be greater than his first term,” she said. “I don’t see this as something he’s suddenly going to be able to turn
around.”¶ Obama’s pledge to shutter the Guantánamo Bay military prison was one of his biggest campaign promises in 2008,
and he signed an executive order his first week in office to close the military facility on Cuban
soil.¶ Stewart’s question, in fact, used the same phrase that Obama did at the executive order signing ceremony. ¶ But in the face of
fierce opposition in Congress from Republicans, Obama backed away from his attempts to close the facility
and move the terrorism trials from military commissions into federal courts.¶ Pre-trial hearings for Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind who the Obama administration wanted to try in downtown Manhattan, resumed
this week at Guantánamo Bay.¶ House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) said that bipartisan opposition prevented
the administration from closing the prison when Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress.¶ “If he wants to try again,
that is his choice,” McKeon, who has helped lead GOP efforts to block transfers of Gitmo detainees in the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), said in a statement to The Hill.¶ “I'd suggest that he precede the request with developing a
comprehensible and consistent policy for detaining and interrogating terrorists,” McKeon added. “No one has ever argued that
Guantanamo Bay is ideal, but before you talk about closing it you have to tell the country what you will replace it with.Ӧ An Obama
campaign official said that closing Guantánamo remains a priority for the president, and that he is committed to closing it in a
second term.¶ The official noted that even while Gitmo remains open, the Obama administration has reduced the detainee
population. Mitt Romney supports keeping the prison open and increasing its size, the official said. ¶ Democratic aides in Congress
acknowledge it would be difficult to gain enough support to close the military prison while Republicans
retain control of the House. But they say that some traction has been made on the issue in the past year.
The United States federal government should provide technical cooperation over
the transfer of United States owned physical assets in the Republic of Cuba.
Biopower/Terror 1AC
Guantanamo Bay is the site of convergence of the United States’ exercise of
biopower in the War on Terror – exposure is key to challenge these practices
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT
HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS
CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
There is, for Foucault, a clear movement in history and philosophy awayfrom concerns over the best regime and the proper ordering
of the soul to thevarious and unrestricted elements that constitute the soul. For GiorgioAgamben, similarly, but with significant
differences in emphasis, the meaningsof sovereignty and of subjectivity have been irredeemably altered; Agambenargues that the
concentration camp has replaced the city as the paradigmatic object of inquiry into sovereignty,
subjectivity, and citizenship (Ek, 2006). Thisalteration has as its most significant trope the Muselmann.In the third part of
our essay, we discuss not a factor in thereconstitution of the detainee but the outcome of the two factors mentionedabove . The
idea of the detainee as a Muselmann contains within it importantimplications for the new
understanding of sovereignty in the era of Guantánamo, in an age of exception. In Arabic, one who submits to
the will of God is a Muslim. However, in the argot of Auschwitz (but not in all theconcentration camps of the Third Reich), the
Muselmann is the one who was“given up by his comrades … a staggering corpse, a bundle of physicalfunctions, in its last
convulsions” (Amery, 1980, 9). In Auschwitz, theMuselmann became a classification of a certain kind of person unworthy of life,a
product of Nazism’s peculiar ordering of rank among human beings inconfinement.Yet rather than categorizing the Muselmann as
an outlier who is broughtwithin the “juridico-political order” (Agamben, 1998, 18), Agamben sees theMuselmann as the being that
constitutes the political order in modern times because that order no longer lives by the distinction between inside and outside,
between the political animal and the slave. Such distinctions have crumbled inthe presence of the Nazi concentration camps. Thus,
the state of exceptionwhich brought forth the Muselmann is neither a legal phenomenon nor a political one, strictly understood. It is,
rather, the space which validates the juridico-political order (Agamben, 1998, 19). Sovereignty, Agamben writes, isreconstituted
here, on the threshold of the new order of the ages, and whosesymbol is the concentration camp. The camp and its effects have
overturned allmoral qualities, all distinctions between human and animal, particularly withthe advent of the Muselmann, whose
presence we are only beginning towitness, but whose affect on power we cannot avoid. Ҧ It can even be said that the
production of a biopolitical body is the original activity of sovereign power ¶ ” (Agamben, 1998, 6; italics
in original). For Agamben, the Muselmann reframes sovereignty at the point of convergence within the
liminal spaces of sovereignty, Guantánamo, and biopower. Fourth, then, we turn to the final factor in the altered
status of thedetainee, bioconvergence. The Bush Administration’s legal tactics regarding detainees took
place, in part, under cover of the media’s failure to report the full story of the war’s effects, both
in battle and at Guantánamo , which allowed theBush Administration to implement policies that both ignored legal norms
andstretched the meaning of legal norms (Kurtz, 2004, A1; John, Domke, et al.,2007). And yet, two years after the war began, the
media’s newfound focus onthe arrests and the conditions of imprisonment of those deemed “enemycombatants” provided the public
with insight into the Bush Administration’sthinking regarding friends and enemies. Through published pictures in major
newsweeklies ,
the shrouded detainees of Guantánamo have become (andcontinue to be) the site of
convergence for the effects of biopower on those deemed unworthy of national and international
legal protections. Thus, at the intersection of sovereignty, the war on terror, and the media lies a
convergence of ideas and practices that fundamentally alter the meaning of being a detainee.
Treatment of detainees at Guantanamo justifies endless torture and suffering
Volha Piotukh, Edinburgh, 6 June 2008, PhD student, School of Politics and International Studies, (POLIS) The University of
Leeds, Supervisors: Dr. Deiniol Jones and Prof. Alice Hills, “Humanitarian Action and the War on Terror: Some Preliminary
Thoughts on a New Biopolitical Nexus” www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/.../Piotukh_Paper.doc DS)
I would suggest that theorising on biopower and biopolitics can provide useful insights not only at the macro, but also at the micro
level, as particular practices can also be ‘read’ biopolitically, including what euphemistically was
termed ‘detention and interrogation techniques’ in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I believe that what matters
most for such a reading is not the torture as such, or the persistent denial of such facts by the U.S. Administration, or the hypocrisy
of its rhetoric stressing the full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, or even the double-standards inherent in
accusing other countries of resorting to torture and similar practices, but the fact that torture has become legitimised
and even subject to regulation. Referring to Foucault’s concept of biopower as a power that fosters life or disallows it to
the point of death, Wadiwel suggests that it “can (…) capture and subject life, for an indefinite duration, to a
measured violence (…) In this violence – a frictional violence – the sovereign reveals a
commitment to life, a life whose time is measured by pain” (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). Torture, therefore,
can be considered as an ugly form of life preservation. A torturer has to maintain life, to not let death prevent the
continued infliction of pain, which can become life long (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 117). Thus, the Nazi ‘Protective Custody’ directive of
October 26, 1939 contained the following condition: (..) the duration of detention in a concentration camp must always be indicated
as ‘indefinite’” (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). The detainees of detention camps scattered all over the world, share
the same fate, as they have been promised release only upon cessation of GWOT, which, as we
know, is a war with imprecise objectives, and no definite end. This indefinite detention itself becomes a form of
torture. Agamben’s theorising can also provide useful insights. For example, the tortured were those categorised as ‘unlawful’ or
‘enemy’ combatants – terms unknown in international law. These definitions allowed the U.S. Administration to deprive these people
of the protection provided by either IHL or human rights law. Moreover, they could not appeal to the U.S. national courts as, given
the location of the camps, the courts would not have jurisdiction to consider appeals of foreigners captured and held abroad. Thus,
these people were turned into Homo Sacer, stripped of anything that could stand between them
and the torturer as a personification of bio-power, caught in the state of exception where law does
not apply in any other way than by no longer applying. Anything becomes possible, including the
decisions that practices that ‘only’ amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading can be tolerated,
anything up to the point when “tortured are finally left with nothing but their own living being, felt
only through an endless suffering” (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 120).
Continued policy support for Guantanamo uniquely perpetuates a state of
exception which renders infinite war inevitable – turns their impacts
(Fleur Johns 2005, Lecturer, University of Sydney Faculty of Law, Sydney, Australia. “Guantanamo Bay and the annihilation
of the exception, http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/4/311.pdf, DS)
Giorgio Agamben has argued that the Military Order of November 2001 (by which the indefinite detention and
trial of alleged enemy combatants at Guantánamo Bay was authorized) ‘produced a legally unnamable and
unclassifiable being’ in the person of the detainee.52 This rendered each detainee ‘the object of a
pure de facto rule’ subject to ‘a detention . . . entirely removed from the law ’.53 According to Agamben,
this embodies a juridical phenomenon – the ‘state of exception – that arose historically from the merging of
two precepts: the extension of military power into the civil sphere (under the rubric of a state of siege) and the suspension of constitutional norms protecting individual liberties by governmental decree.54 T his merger, Agamben characterizes as
bringing into being a ‘kenomatic space, an emp- tiness of law’55 in which the sovereign affirms its
authoritative locus within the legal order by acting to suspend the law altogether .56 As such, it is
expressive of a ‘dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics’ .57 ‘[US President George
W.] Bush’, Agamben claims, ‘is attempting to produce a situation in which the emergency becomes
the rule, and the very distinction between peace and war . . . becomes impossible ’.58 Unlike the
commentators cited in the preceding section, Agamben is at pains to point out that this ‘state of exception’ is neither removed from
the legal order, nor cre- ates ‘a special kind of law’. Rather, it ‘defines law’s threshold or limit concept’.59 Agamben maintains that
the ‘state of exception’ is juridical in form and effect – a vital scene for the development and deployment of governmental techniques
of rule. Within the juridical order, the state of exception is said to embody an emptiness of law , ‘a space devoid
of law, a zone of anomie in which all legal determinations . . . are deactivated’.60 More precisely, the state of exception is
‘neither external nor internal to the juridical order’; it is rather a ‘zone of indifference, where inside and outside do
not exclude each other but rather blur with each other’.61 In Agamben’s account, law ‘employs the exception . . .
as its original means of referring to and encompassing life’so as to ‘bind[ ] and, at the same time, abandon[ ] the living being to
law’.62 Law binds itself to ‘bare life’ – zoé or biological life as such – in the space of the exception, whereby every outside, every
limit of life and every possibility of transgression comes to be included within the purview of ‘a new juridico-political paradigm’.63 Of
the November 2001 Military Order, Agamben observes that ‘it radically erases any legal status of the individual’ by reason of the
detainees held thereunder enjoying neither ‘the status of POWs as defined by the Geneva Conventions’ nor ‘the status of persons
charged with a crime according to American laws’.64 Accordingly, Agamben declares the operations at Guantánamo Bay ‘de facto
proceedings, which are in them- selves extra- or antijuridical’ but which have nonetheless ‘pass[ed] over into law’ such that ‘juridical
norms blur with mere fact’.65 Agamben thus endorses, albeit in his own distinct terms, the claim that much of the
legal scholarship surrounding Guantánamo Bay makes: that this jurisdiction rep- resents a
special, original case within the juridical order: ‘a zone of indistinction in which fact and law
coincide’ .66 In so doing, Agamben implies the existence, or pre- existence, of a juridical zone – a space of non-exceptional
character – in which fact and law do not coalesce; a secondary sphere in which maintaining ‘the very distinc- tion between peace
and war’ is or was possible. Agamben’s discussion of the ‘nour- ish[ment]’67 that the exception affords law suggests some other
domain where, but for the exception, law might hold back (or be held back) from its voracious coloniza- tion of the preconditions of
life and of politics (‘the normal situation’).68
Our impacts come before their DAs – challenging the discursive framework of the
war on terror counters the very foundations of the war
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
First, the war on terror.
Apart from the reality of war on the battlefield, the war on terror also exists
within a discursive framework. The war on terror has revivified an interest in the theological and
political differences betweenChristianity and Islam. It has created a discourse of dangerousness
based on thereligion of those who hijacked the planes that crashed into the World TradeCenter on September 11, 2001, as well as
the religion of those captured in Iraqand Afghanistan (Sengupta and Masood, 2005). Casting the war on terror
intheological and political terms, Alberto Gonzales, President George W. Bush’sAttorney General,
told some journalists that al Qaeda is different from all other enemies America has faced because
it does “not cherish life” (Hersh, 2004, 5).Indeed, President Bush went further than his Attorney General bycharacterizing
the war against al Qaeda as only part of the larger global war onterror. For President Bush, the
global war on terror is one that may never end, because the enemy is stateless, relentless, and
potentially everywhere.Consequently, President Bush, in an important address to the American peoplefollowing the events
of September 11, saw fit to flesh out the implications of fighting an enemy that does not cherish life by warning the American
peoplethat they “should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike anyother we have ever seen,” because the global war
on terror will not be limited by the requirements of the laws of war. Effectively, a state of emergency hadcreated a state
of exception, where the norms of lawful behavior recede in favor of the more pressing concerns
over security and the meaning of life itself:It may include dramatic strike s, visible on TV, and
covertoperations, secret even in success. We will starve terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place
to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursuenations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation,in
every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are withus, or you are with the terrorists. From this day
forward, anynation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will beregarded by the United States as a hostile regime. (Bush,
2001)In the second part of this article, we discuss the reconfigured meaning of sovereignty as a factor in
the reconstitution of the Guantánamo detainee as anenemy combatant who can be denied the
privileges of prisoners of war. Thetraditional goal of sovereignty is to “establish the essential unity of power” onthree
“elements”: “subject, unitary power, and law” (Foucault, 2003, 44). For Michel Foucault, however, the “juridical existence of
sovereignty” no longer categorizes subjectivity. “For a long time,” Foucault writes, “one of the characteristic privileges
of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death” (1990b, 135). Now, wars are “waged on behalf of the
existence of everyone” (1990b, 137). He called this insight “biopower.”Biopower deals with the social body and its effects in
producing norms.Foucault recognized that life gained new meaning in the classical age and againduring the advent of capitalism.
The concern over life (its ordering,maintenance, and subsistence), for Foucault, is a modern invention, and biopower represents a
positive force in the sense that it produces new meaningto life. It assembles the forces of power and the effects of knowledge
operatingon subjects. The alteration in the view of sovereignty, then, from aninstitutional structure (premised on natural balances) to
that which “obligesobedience” (Foucault, 2008, 303) means that, today, it is less important to focuson sovereignty
as a political and institutional structure than as one elementamong many that structures
subjectivity
Continuation of torture renders every individual vulnerable to state violence and
is the root cause of their impacts
Slavoj Zizek 2005, Slavoj Zizek is a senior researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the Institute of Sociology, University
of Ljubljana, “BIOPOLITICS: BETWEEN ABU GHRAIB AND TERRI SCHIAVO.” http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavojzizek/articles/biopolitics-between-abu-ghraib-and-terri-schiavo/ DS)
The fate of Terri Schiavo and the fate of the tortured prisoners are the two extremes of America's regard
for human rights: on the one hand "those missed by the bombs" (mentally and physically complete human beings who must
be deprived of all rights), on the other hand a human being reduced to bare vegetative life (the living dead whose "life" must be
protected by the entire state apparatus). What these two opposites share is a reduction to bare life. In the Schiavo case, this
reduction is a biological reality, which is why her life deserves protection; in the case of tortured prisoners, this
reduction is imposed by the state apparatus, which is why their lives are deemed unworthy of
protection. Terri Schiavo not only deserved to enjoy every human right but must have them forced on her, though she was
unable in any event to make use of them as a person; the tortured prisoners are able to use--and presumably desperate to be
granted--any human right but must be deprived of all. The legitimization of torture and the excessive care for
a
human life reduced to vegetative state are thus two manifestations of the same grotesque logic.
There is, however, a further phantasmic element that sustains the tolerance for torture--that of being exposed to a potential or
invisible threat: It is the invisible (and for that very reason all-powerful and omnipresent) threat of the
Enemy that legitimizes the permanent state of emergency of the Established Power. (Fascists invoked
the threat of the Jewish conspiracy, Stalinists the threat of the class enemy, and today, of course, we have the "war on terror.")
This invisible threat of the Enemy legitimizes the logic of the preemptive strike. Precisely because
the threat is virtual, one can't wait for its actualization, the omnipresent invisible threat of "terror"
legitimizes the all too visible protective measures of defense (which, of course, pose the only true threat to
democracy and human rights). If the classic exercise of power lay in the threat made operative precisely by way of never actualizing
itself, by way of remaining a threatening gesture (a stratagem that reached its climax in the cold war, wherein the threat of the
mutual nuclear destruction had to remain a threat), with the war on terror, the invisible threat causes the incessant actualization not
of itself but of the measures against itself. The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strike, while the
threat of the terrorist strike triggers an endless series of strikes against alleged and even merely
potential terrorists. The power that presents itself as being always under threat, living in mortal danger, and thus merely
defending itself is the most dangerous kind of power, the very model of Nietzschean ressentiment and moralistic hypocrisy--and was
it not Nietzsche himself who, more than a century ago, provided avant la lettre the best analysis of the false moral premises of
today's "war on terror"? No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest.
Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of
self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor
must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of selfdefense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as
much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a
cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states
are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This
presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the
cause of wars, because, as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes
a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense
just as completely as the desire for conquests."
Each time we deem torture permissible that justifies its spread – we have to reject
torture in every instance
Slavoj Zizek 2005, Slavoj Zizek is a senior researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the Institute of Sociology, University
of Ljubljana, “BIOPOLITICS: BETWEEN ABU GHRAIB AND TERRI SCHIAVO.” http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavojzizek/articles/biopolitics-between-abu-ghraib-and-terri-schiavo/ DS)
But in reality, of course, the two procedures coexist. The US government agencies running the "war
on terror"
have become increasingly reliant on an extralegal practice known as "extraordinary rendition"--a
euphemism for a policy of seizing suspicious individuals at home or abroad without even the
semblance of due process and sending them off to be interrogated by allied regimes known to
practice torture. Not all of the "enhanced" interrogations are farmed out to foreign intelligence services, however: Witness the
CIA's "black sites," located abroad but covertly operated by the US government. Presumably, "high-value" detainees are whisked
away to these undisclosed locations when no foreign proxy can be entrusted to do the job right. So what about the "realistic"
counterargument to this policy of clandestine torture? The war on terror is dirty, the realists begin by admitting .
At times the lives of thousands depend on information we may be able to extract from our prisoners. So what do you think the
government is going to do? And if we're going to do it--with great reluctance, of course--then shouldn't we have checks on the way
we do it, to prevent excesses? As Alan Dershowitz put it, "I'm not in favor of torture, but if you're going to have it, it should damn well
have court approval." This logic is, of course, extremely dangerous: It legitimizes torture and thus opens up the space for more illicit
torture. So we must reject the liberal "honesty" of a Dershowitz, but are we now stuck supporting a paradoxical and
hypocritical policy of publicly condemning torture while privately practicing it ? In a singular situation,
confronted with the proverbial "prisoner who knows" and whose words might save thousands, one would unquestionably turn to
torture as a last resort; however, it is absolutely crucial that one not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle. Rather,
in the unavoidable, brutal urgency of the moment, one should simply do it.
Only by rejecting in principle the notion
that torture is permissible even in dire circumstances (while knowing that we resorted to it in precisely such
circumstances)
we did.
can we retain the requisite sense of guilt and awareness of the inadmissibility of what
Imperialism 1AC
Closing Guantanamo is the first step toward a legal reformulation of US policy on
torture
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International
University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly
articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international
law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law,
He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the
17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev.
163 – GUANTÁNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN
EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57-Wayne-L-Rev-163-GuantanamoUnderstanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-of-American-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray
Classical physics defines a black hole as the entity that has an enormous gravitational pull by means of which it attracts anything
and everything that comes within its territory. Thus, a black hole can be seen as a giant vacuum which will attract and inhale
everything without ever disclosing the identity of the material it has devoured. I want to bring this physical manifestation of
Guantánamo and place it within a legal context. Like an astronomical black hole devours all other celestial
bodies surrounding it, I see the phenomenological construct of Guantánamo attempting to devour
any and all other legal events that share the same ontological space with it—that is, any alleged
instances of terrorism involving American interests. This is where the correct representation of Guantánamo as a
narrative of legal black hole must be understood. Attention must be given to the sweepingly overpowering phenomenon that has
existed for more than a decade now, and with no end of attenuation in sight. Unless this specter of sending an
individual into Guantánamo goes away, it is very difficult to take the next step in America’s
detainee jurisprudence. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Guantánamo be decoupled from
the legal discourse within American jurisprudence. This decoupling, however, is not possible
without the proper closure of Guantánamo—not only a legally difficult proposition but an event that has existential
ramifications for the American domestic political agenda. Like the way a black hole distorts the traversal path of celestial objects
near its sphere of influence, I see Guantánamo distorting not only the constitutional curvature, but also the possible trajectory of any
legal event. In order for a legal event to proceed to its logical conclusion, it must traverse forward, sometimes in a linear fashion,
oftentimes, however, embracing non-linearity. But, if the trajectory can never decouple itself from a larger gravitational pull, it will
never reach its logical legal conclusion. This is where the closure of Guantánamo has the most significant socio-legal phenomena,
the immediacy of which must be both internalized and achieved. I would submit that consistent detainee jurisprudence is not
possible without adequate closure of Guantánamo—the anatomy of which I dissect below.
Returning Guantanamo is a prerequisite to challenging American imperialism in
Latin America
Phineas Rueckert, June 4, 2013 Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs “Guantánamo Bay: Closing the
GTMO Detention Center is a Wilting Olive Branch to Cuba and the Rest of Latin America” http://www.coha.org/guantanamo-bayclosing-the-gtmo-detention-center-is-a-wilting-olive-branch-to-cuba-and-the-rest-of-latin-america/,TS)
The continued operation of the GTMO detention center is a shameful indictment of a backward and
often hypocritical foreign policy, in which the United States legitimizes leaving Cuba on the State
Sponsors of Terrorism List and simultaneously operates a morally objectionable detention center
with a long history of human rights violations. While closing down the detention center and transferring detainees would be a step in the right direction for the Obama
administration in terms of improving its poor human rights record, there is a larger issue at hand that has been ignored by both the administration and mainstream media outlets. In addition to being a detention
Guantánamo Bay houses a naval base that represents the imperialist past of the United States
in Cuba and the rest of Latin America; this base will remain operational even if Obama succeeds
at closing the detention center. Ultimately, if Obama truly wanted to improve relations with Latin
America, through a change of policy on Guantánamo, he would not only close the GTMO
detention center, but also return the entire naval base to Cuba.
center,
Guantanamo bay justifies US exceptionalism and imperialism which
naturalizes and reproduces endless violence and racism
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
The meeting of exceptionalism, liberalism and the colossal US military machine is explosive. Because the¶ idea of
exceptionalism (reified as it is, not being criticized) expresses some sort of superiority that not only¶ gives the US the “right” of
lecturing other people on how to organize their societies, but also establishes a sort of hierarchy of life value, at the top of
which rest American lives. If we add to this the disproportionate¶ military apparatus and a liberal discourse affirming US action is
carried out in the name of Humanity and¶ not because of self-interest, the real possibility to carry out extermination policies
towards those who do not agree with the way of life that is being imposed on them emerges. This is one way to understand a¶
fundamental US paradox: While it has had the leading role in constructing the most complex international legal order to
maintain peace, it has, at the same time, constructed a colossal military machine -without a¶ peer competitor- that cannot be
understood solely in terms of defense (of Humanity). What we are trying to¶ emphasize is the intrinsic linkage between US
democracy and violence and the danger that accompanies it¶ when used in the name of universality, because it can lead to an
exterminating violence. As Benjamin once¶ said, this violence is not just a conservative one, but can act as a founder one (1995).
And this is important¶ too: No democracy works without violence and -we do not have to forget- violence is in the origins of US¶
democracy. Indeed, it was built on the genocide of natives and slavery. Furthermore, must consider this an¶ open chapter in
history: in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq (just for citing some examples) US is currentlyexercising founder violence.¶ Whether
the exceptionalism is understood as an example or as a right and a duty to impose particular ¶ values on other people, both
meanings shed light on the sense of superiority that permeates US identity. ¶ We can affirm thus that American exceptionalism is
no more than a form of racism. This assertion deserves¶ further development.
American exceptionalism justifies extermination of the other
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
In this context, talking about the Bush administration appears to be almost an obligation. Indeed, after ¶ raising the WMD and the
Saddam Hussein-Al Qaida liaisons questions, the discourse of the previous US administration turned to democracy. The
diagnosis was that terrorism was an eff ect of freedom/democracy deficit in the Middle East region; hence, the treatment
implied its imposition. As we have held before, the¶ Bush administration tried to amalgamate interests and values. Freedom and
security: the two principal features of the biopolitical power strongly emerged. Indeed, after 9-11, the most important interest
of US¶ appeared to be a vital one: assuring the nation. The main value, what (it was said) distinguished US from the rest of the
world, was freedom, homologated with its democratic system. Thus, security adopted notjust a conservative character, linked
with survival, but a multiplier one: it was not just about protection but about improvement as well.¶ As said, liberal
democracy is expected to be fully inclusive, forgetting that it is based (as we have seen) on exclusion. Furthermore, the
dialectic inclusion/exclusion still works here, with the augmented risk that exclusion takes the form of an exterminating one. That
is, if liberal hegemony aspires to a universal inclusion,it takes the risk of: 1. including the other in a hierarchical way, through
the negation of his otherness (thus,¶ turning it in someone similar, erasing its diff erences); 2. exterminating those who do not
accept being included. And it is here where cultural racism works, because it is the mechanism which permits the US¶ or -now
that the North American power aspires to play a low profile role in the interventionist moves- the¶ liberal powers in general, to kill in
the name of certain universalities: freedom and Humanity. The US policy¶ towards Iraq and Afghanistan and (with some
diff erences) last intervention in Libya, where many people¶ have been killed on behalf of their own well-being, are a few examples
of what we are trying to explain.
Guantanamo is the root of modern militarism – it’s the base of media racism in
the context of the War on Drugs and War on Terror
Braziel 6 (Jana Evans, Assistant professor of English and comparative literature at the University of Cincinnati, Haiti,
Guantánamo, and the "One Indispensable Nation" U.S. Imperialism, "Apparent States," and Postcolonial Problematics of
Sovereignty, Cultural Critique 64, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cultural_critique/v064/64.1braziel.html//TS)
the U.S. naval
base at Guantánamo Bay has been the militarized center for other rhetorically determined yet still
materially destructive "wars": notably, the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror"; but I would
also add the "War against Refugees." [End Page 138] These administrative and militarized attacks—
against drugs, "enemy combatants," and refugees—have distinctly transnational and overtly
racialized dimensions. Above, I focused primarily on the military offenses against refugees and "enemy combatants," although both
are partially and rhetorically entangled with the military base's involvement in the "War on
Drugs"—ever popular with both the legislative branches of the U.S. government and the U.S. public and thus capable of rallying unwavering, nearly unquestioned political support and exorbitant funding.
For example, Haitian refugees who were detained at the Guantánamo Bay naval base during the early to
mid-1990s were routinely and rhetorically aligned with illegal drug traffickers: all boats containing
Haitian passengers intercepted at sea were immediately suspected of two unforgivable crimes:
illegal narcotics transshipment and illegal refugee transportation —in effect, a double condemnation for
simply being Haitian. Similarly, as Afghan men were detained as "enemy combatants" at the Guantánamo
naval base in 2002, the Bush administration stepped up its U.S. media campaign in the ever-ready
Although most U.S. wars have remained remote to the shores of the continental United States—in Europe, North Africa, Asia, or within the Caribbean and closer to home—
blitz of the "War on Drugs," warning American consumers of "black market" illegal substances
that dealing, buying, and using heroin was tantamount to "supporting terrorism" (since, it was reasoned, opium
dollars could be, almost ineluctably would be, diverted to terrorist organizations), and the media campaign even went so far as to reductively
conflate chemical substances and geopolitical territories, eliding their differences and implying
that marijuana, like heroin, could be connected to potential terrorist acts against the United
States. Threats of terrorist acts, of course, incited fear in the U.S. American public and sustained
steadfast, though not unchallenged, support for military interventions as part of the "War on Terror." (The
antiwar movement, though vibrant and widespread throughout the United States and globally, leading up to the U.S. War against Iraq—initiated in March 2003 in an air missile bombing campaign—was largely
ignored by the U.S. media and the administration.)Haitian diasporic artists, musicians, and writers, not surprisingly, offer strikingly different portrayals of Guantánamo than those given within official "histories" of
the U.S. naval base.32 In "Something in the Water . . . Reflection of a People's Journey," Nikòl Payen, echoing Martí's language more than a century after the poet and martyr scrawled his entry from Guantánamo
into his Diarios de campaña, [End Page 139] textually paints a "hostile" portrait of Guantánamo: while working as a Kreyòl translator on the U.S. naval base in order both to obtain information from the Haitian
Guantánamo, which was deliberately and militaristically
pocked with "acres of land mines strategically plotted throughout the burned grass partitioned by
steel fences with barbed-wire topping, a deterrent for Cubans who were curious about democracy, not the ones who crossed the border every morning to work for the
U.S. government, [and which] left me in awe of the island's intricate readiness for war" (73). Even the sounds
of Guantánamo suggest its militarization in Payen's sensate and imaginary narrative remapping of the base's landscape: she does not recall the lull of
waves breaking against sand, or the call of birds, but rather, she remembers, "the chopping of helicopters was a familiar noise, as
was the arbitrary explosion of cannons" (73). In Payen's memory and narrative, it is the "militarization" of
the bay that is the most striking element of Guantánamo, a place where "twenty-four-hour guard
towers reassured both sides protection of their respective countries. Sun up to sundown, soldiers
stood guard at the borders with the guns permanently aimed in the direction of the enemy" (73).
refugees and to articulate their needs to the U.S. military, Payen recalls the stark landscape of
Returning Gitmo starts the retractions of US imperialism in Latin America
Williams 2007 (Carol J. Williams Los Angeles Times international affairs writer. Former foreign correspondent, 25 years
covering Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-04-18/news/0704180417_1_cubaguantanamo-bay-latin-america Accessed 7/19/13//TS)
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA -- President Fidel Castro wages a silent protest against the U.S. "tenants" of this bay in southern Cuba from a drawer in his desk. There lie 47 uncashed checks drawn on the U.S.
The presence
of U.S. troops on Cuban soil has long rankled Castro, who has often ranted about the "imperialist
occupation." Julia Sweig, director of Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations,
noted the international outcry over the Pentagon's use of the base at Guantanamo to detain and
prosecute prisoners in the war on terror. "One way to unload the problem would be to give it back to
Cuba," she said. "The question is, would the Cubans want it back? Because it's become such a global symbol of what has gone wrong
with America - not just a symbol of our colonial impulses but of the anti-imperialist fight
throughout Latin America - it's something Cuba uses to greater benefit than getting the base
back." In a report last month on Guantanamo's role in the troubled relationship between Havana and Washington, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs think
tank concluded that returning the territory is essential to ending the perceived U.S. domination of
Latin American neighbors.
Treasury, each for $4,085, the annual rent fixed in a 1903 lease agreement that has vexed Cuba's leader since a leftist revolution brought him to power nearly a half-century ago.
Imperialism causes serial policy failure
Harvey, 2003 (David Harvey is the Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the
Graduate Center of the City University of New York. Clarendon Lectures in Geography
and Environmental Studies : New Imperialism.
London, GBR: Oxford University Press, 2003. p 193-194
http://site.ebrary.com/lib/michstate/Doc?id=10545870&ppg=207, TS)
Iraq had long been a central concern for the neoconservatives, but the difficulty was that public support for military intervention was
unlikely to materialize without some catastrophic event ‘on the scale of Pearl Harbor’, as they put it. 9/11 provided the
golden opportunity, and a moment of social solidarity and patriotism was seized upon to
construct an American nationalism that could provide the basis for a different form of imperialist
endeavour and internal control. Most liberals, even those who had formerly been critical of US
imperialist practices, backed the administration in launching its war against terror and were
prepared to sacrifice something of civil liberties in the cause of national security. The accusation of being
unpatriotic was used to suppress critical engagement or meaningful dissent. The
media and the political parties fell
into line . This enabled the political leadership to enact repressive legislation with scarcely any opposition— most notably the
Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. Draconian curbs on civil rights were instituted.
Prisoners were held illegally and
without representation in Guantanamo Bay, indiscriminate round-ups of ‘suspects’ occurred, and
many were held for months without access to legal advice, let alone a trial. Police could arbitrarily
detain anyone suspected of ‘terrorism’, which could include, it soon became clear, even those in the antiglobalization movement. Draconian surveillance techniques were introduced (the FBI was to have access to records of
book-borrowing from libraries, book purchases, internet connections, records of student enrolment, membership of scuba-diving
clubs, etc.). The administration also seized the opportunity to cut all kinds of programmes for the poor (in the name of sacrifice for a
national cause). It imposed a tax-cut programme that grossly favoured the wealthiest 1 per cent of the
population (in the name of stimulating the economy) and even proposed the elimination of taxes on dividends
in the vain hope that this might bolster asset values on Wall Street. But such policies, coupled
with flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights and of American constitutionality, could only be
sustained, as Washington, Madison, and many others had long ago recognized and feared, through
foreign entanglements of an imperialist sort. Given the threats implied in the events of 9/11, and the climate of
suppression of dissent, even liberal opinion swung behind the idea of the invasion of Afghanistan, the routing of the Taliban, and the
global hunt for al Qaeda.
Attempts to maintain American superiority and security are symptomatic of
paranoia manifesting itself throughout politics – the inevitable result of which is
flashpoint imperial violence
McClintock 09
(Anne McClintock is a writer, feminist scholar and public intellectual who has published widely on issues of sexuality, race,
imperialism, and nationalism; popular and visual culture, photography, advertising and cultural theory “Paranoid Empire: Specters
from Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib” March 2009, p. 53 Accessed via Project MUSE, TS)
Why paranoia? Can we fully understand the proliferating circuits of imperial violence—the very eclipsing of
which gives to our moment its uncanny, phantasmagoric cast—without understanding the
pervasive presence of the paranoia that has come, quite violently, to manifest itself across the
political and cultural spectrum as a defining feature of our time? By paranoia, I mean not simply Hofstadter’s famous identification of the US state’s tendency toward conspiracy
theories.7 Rather, I conceive of paranoia as an inherent contradiction with respect to power: a double-sided
phantasm that oscillates precariously between deliriums of grandeur and nightmares of perpetual
threat, a deep and dangerous doubleness with respect to power that is held in unstable tension,
but which, if suddenly destabilized (as after 9/11), can produce pyrotechnic displays of violence . The
pertinence of understanding paranoia, I argue, lies in its peculiarly intimate and peculiarly dangerous relation to violence.8 Let me be clear: I do not see paranoia as a primary, structural cause of US imperialism
nor as its structuring identity. Nor do I see the US war on terror as animated by some collective, psychic agency, submerged mind, or Hegelian “cunning of reason,” nor by what Susan Faludi calls a national
“terror dream.”9 Nor am I interested in evoking paranoia as a kind of psychological diagnosis of the imperial nation-state. Nations do not have “psyches” or an “unconscious”; only people do. Rather, a
social entity such as an organization, state, or empire can be spoken of as “paranoid” if the
dominant powers governing that entity cohere as a collective community around contradictory
cultural narratives, self-mythologies, practices, and identities that oscillate between delusions of
inherent superiority and omnipotence, and phantasms of threat and engulfment. The term paranoia
is analytically useful here, then, not as a description of a collective national psyche, nor as a description of a universal pathology, but rather as an analytically
strategic concept, a way of seeing and being attentive to contradictions within power, a way of
making visible (the better politically to oppose) the contradictory flashpoints of violence that the state tries
to conceal.
Imperialist domination leads to lost of value to life – that outweighs
Perez 8 (Pepito Perez published Semptember 2008 “A short essay on the overall negative consequences of 19th century European imperialism.” http://www.scribd.com/doc/6289110/TheConsequences-of-Imperialism
Imperialist ambitions pushed for the economic exploitation of colonized nations to benefit the
mother country. As imperial states began controlling the economy of the colonized territory, interests for the welfare of the colonized peoples had
little influence in defining their economic policies. Instead, imperial states seek to maximize their profits
and gains, regardless of the consequences such attitudes entailed for the colonized areas. Most notably,
the long-term well being of the colonized nation was of no interest for the imperial state, and so any form of
sustainable development seemed unnecessary for any imperial government. This is the reason why deforestation is
a massive problem for many nations, which had formerly been controlled by some imperial
power. 3 Imperial powers, in their quest for economic prosperity, disregarded the need for the sustainable management
of forest areas and established minimally regulated lumber industries which seek only short-term
profits for themselves and their mother country. 4 Thus, unsustainable overexploitation of natural resources
followed. The effects are clearly in modern times, as the environmental degradation caused because of self-interested
imperialist endeavors is difficult to reverse, and is undoubtedly connected with the rampant
poverty and hunger present in many former colonies. 5 While some industrial development did occur, imperial interests in colonized territories were
aimed at creating an economy based on agriculture and the exploitation of other finite natural resources such as gold, silver, or diamonds. 6 Thus, the industrial development that did occur in colonized territories
was relevant to the desire of imperial powers to turn colonized states into sources of cheap raw products to be later used in their industries back home. The economy of colonized territories was not diversified or
turned into an industrial one, and instead a select number of goods were targeted, and their production/extraction hugely increased. 7 Imperial investment and construction focused on the development and
construction of communications, railways, plantations and mines, 8 investments which did not by themselves help in the economic transformation of the country from agricultural to industrial. Rather, these
investments were intended to accelerate the exploitation of the colonies’ natural resources and agricultural capacities. Once the nation attained political independence from the mother country, the legacy left
behind from imperialism established an economy which depended on the export of a few select natural resources and agricultural, leaving the country’s economy extremely vulnerable to market price fluctuations.
imperial powers to reinvest the profits gained from their colonies in their
industrial development 3 forcefully kept colonies under a fragile agricultural economy 9 while still
depriving them of their finite natural resources. Thus, imperialism had a highly negative effect on the
economic growth of colonized nations. The partitioning of colonies worldwide into the spheres of
influence of imperial powers created colonies that encompassed numerous ethnic, linguistic, and
religious groups into a single political entity. This recurrent aspect of imperialism was most notable in Africa, where its partitioning did not correspond to the
Most importantly, the unwillingness of
historical, cultural, or ethnic boundaries of pre-colonial African societies. Thus, states were created which shared widely diverse ethnic populations, which felt no identity or connection to the political entity which
they had been forcefully drawn into. 10 The political legacy left behind by imperialism left a cluster of artificially formed states which had no historic or cultural similarities on which to legitimatize its existence. 11
This situation, along with the economic difficulties suffered because of the previously discussed issues, led to an environment of political turmoil based on ethnic, religious, and linguistic. 12 Countries deeply
divided among ethnic lines, a result of imperialism, not only led to the political instability of the former colonies, but also, in some cases, led to serious violence. Modern-day Kenya exemplifies this, as the
competition of two different ethnic groups for the control of the government has led to a situation comparable to that of an early civil war. 13 It is thus clear that imperialism has resulted in a permanent liability in
the geo-political situation of a great number of countries world wide. Regardless of the possible economic or technological benefits of imperialism, it is difficult to even begin to justify those ends by the tremendous
Unjust death of many natives at the hands of the military and technological
superiority of imperial powers. However, the effects of imperialism go much farther beyond conquest:
forceful slavery-like conditions in the colonized territories imposed great sufferings among the
native population, and in many cases, unjust repression by the colonizing power led to the mass
killings of a great number of people. In the Congo Free State, a Belgian colony, an estimated 10
million people died as a consequence of the imperialist policies of the time . 14 Additionally, retaliatory attacks on indigenous
loss of life that occurred because of it.
populations in many other instances resulted in the extermination of huge numbers of people. The unjust and unnecessary death of such a great number of people because of imperialism is, again, difficult to
justify. However, one must also admit that imperialism allowed colonized territories to technologically advance thanks to the connection with other imperial powers. One canal so argue that the introduction of
western values through imperialism helped rid colonized territories of certain obsolete and
morally condemnable practices and traditions. However, these benefits do not even begin to
outweigh the negative impacts which imperialism brought. Imperialism was thus a largely negative aspect of the
19 th and 20 th centuries, as it achieved, through unjustifiable, repressive unjust means, an end which favored
the few powerful imperial states and greatly hindered the great majority of colonized and
subjugated territories
Inherency
Won’t Close Now
Despite legal issues and criticism from other countries the US is still not
closing Guantanamo anytime soon
Susan Seligson, master’s in journalism at BU’s College of Communication, 5-28-13, “Guantanamo: the Legal Mess Behind
the Ethical Mess,” BU Today, interviewed in this article is Susan M. Akram, a School of Law clinical professor of law and former
executive director of Boston’s Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legalmess-behind-the-ethical-mess/
How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there?¶ There’s
no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld,
and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely
without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were
unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and
legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by
other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the
detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the
Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of
domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the
detainees determined by a “competent tribunal.”
Guantanamo Bay Not Closing, No Support In House
HuffingtonPost 2013 ( “Guantanamo Bay To Stay Open As House Blocks Bill To Close Infamous Prison”, 6/14/2013,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/guantanamo-bay-close_n_3438347.html)
WASHINGTON -- A worsening hunger strike and a fresh plea by President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay
prison fell on deaf ears in Congress Friday, as the House of Representatives voted to keep the increasingly infamous jail
open. The House voted to make it harder for Obama to begin shifting inmates, adding a restriction to the National Defense
Authorization Act of 2014 that bars any of the roughly 56 prisoners who have been cleared by military and intelligence
officials to be sent to Yemen from being transferred there for one year. Some 30 other Gitmo inmates of the 166 kept there have
also been cleared for release. "The Defense Department should not transfer detainees to Yemen because they represent
some of the most dangerous terrorists known in the world," said Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who sponsored the fresh
ban on shipping anyone out of Gitmo. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered a competing amendment to create a plan to
close Gitmo, found the new restriction especially ironic, noting that federal authorities believe the Yemeni detainees are safe
enough to be set free. "Not everybody that we rounded up and took to Guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be the
very dangerous terrorists that we thought they were," Smith said, adding that continuing to hold them -- at a facility costing $1.6
million a year for each inmate -- was not sensible. "Determining that if there is any minimal threat whatsoever we're simply
going to hold them forever is, well, quite frankly, un-American. That is contrary to our values to say we're going to hold
somebody indefinitely -- I gather forever -- because we think there might possibly be some risk," Smith said. "That's not the
way the Constitution is supposed to work."
Guantanamo Bay Not Closing, Bills Preventing
Dinan, 2010(Stepthen, a Washington Times Political contributor, “House acts to block closing of Gitmo”, Washington Times,
12/8/10, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-death-blow-gitmo-closure/?page=all)
Congress on Wednesday signaled it won’t close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist
detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obama’s campaign pledge to
shutter the facility in Cuba. The move to block the prison’s closure was written into a massive year-end spending bill that
passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206, part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push
through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January. News of the Guantanamo provision brought
a quick and sharp rebuke from the Obama administration Wednesday.
Obama Unsuccessful at Closing Guantanamo Bay, All Attempts Failed
Negrin, 2012 (Matt Negrin, Prior to joining POLITICO, Matt interned at the AP in Tokyo, The New York Times foreign desk, The
Boston Globe, both in Boston and Washington, and The Hartford Courant. He was a Washington correspondent for the New
Hampshire Union Leader during the spring of 2008 and a blogger at AOL’s now defunct PoliticsDaily. Matt is a native of the
Washington area and a cum laude graduate of Boston University, where he was the editor of the student-run independent
newspaper there, “Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises”, ABC News, 7/3/12,
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-open-promises/story?id=16698768#.UeXqH41OSPM)
It might be President Obama's biggest broken promise: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. As a candidate, Obama
vowed so many times that he would shutter the prison he called a recruitment tool for terrorists that he himself even noted how often
he's promised to do so, in an interview with Steve Kroft shortly after he was elected. In that interview in November 2008, Kroft asked
Obama if he planned to "take early action" to shut down Guantanamo. Obama replied, "Yes." "I have said repeatedly that I
intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that," he said. After three and a half years as president, Obama has not
done so. Shortly after being sworn in, Obama did sign an executive order that required that the Guantanamo prison be
closed within a year. "The detention facilities at Guantánamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as
practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order," read the statement he signed on Jan. 22, 2009. At the end of that
year, in December, with Guantanamo still open and running, Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He said in his acceptance
speech: "I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us
different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength." "That is why I prohibited torture," he added. "That is why I
ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed." Five days later, Obama issued a memo that directed the defense secretary and the
attorney general to prepare a prison in Illinois for the Guantanamo detainees. The deadline in Obama's executive order passed,
and still he hadn't shut down the prison. In March 2011, two years after he signed the order, Obama signed another
executive order. This one set up a review process for detainees. The document sought to "establish, as a discretionary matter, a
process to review on a periodic basis the executive branch's continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in
individual cases." The White House also released a related four-sentence statement in Obama's name. It didn't mention
closing Guantanamo, or even use the word Guantanamo. Obama has run into plenty of opposition in Congress.
Lawmakers passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United
States. Obama signed that bill into law, even as he issued a statement that disapproved of it. The provision was part of a bigger
military bill that Obama said was too important not to sign. Republicans, in particular, say that Guantanamo must stay open to keep
terrorists there. The issue has largely subsided, a result of the stagnant economy wearing on the public and perhaps the
repetitive nature of the storyline.
Closing Guantanamo Bay is not Obama’s priority anymore
Savage, 2013 (Charlie Savage, Charles Savage is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times. He is known for his work
on presidential power and other legal policy matters. Before joining The Times, Mr. Savage covered national legal affairs for the
Boston Globe from 2003 to 2008. He received a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2007 for his coverage of presidential signing
statements for the Globe. Other awards he earned while at the Globe include the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award
and the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency. Mr. Savage's book about the growth of executive
power, “Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy,” was named one of the best
books of 2007 by both Slate and Esquire. The book also received the bipartisan Constitution Project's inaugural Award for
Constitutional Commentary, the NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public
Language and the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism. He graduated summa cum
laude with degrees in English and American literature from Harvard College in 1998. In 2003, he earned a master's degree from
Yale Law School, where he was a Knight Journalism Fellow. Mr. Savage got his start as a local government and politics reporter for
the Miami Herald, “Office Working to Close Guantánamo Is Shuttered”, New York Times, 1/28/13,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closing-guantanamo-prison.html?_r=0)
FORT MEADE, Md. — The State Department on Monday reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at
Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him, according to an internal personnel announcement. Mr. Fried’s office is
being closed, and his former responsibilities will be “assumed” by the office of the department’s legal adviser, the notice
said. The announcement that no senior official in President Obama’s second term will succeed Mr. Fried in working
primarily on diplomatic issues pertaining to repatriating or resettling detainees appeared to signal that the administration
does not currently see the closing of the prison as a realistic priority, despite repeated statements that it still intends to do
so. Mr. Fried will become the department’s coordinator for sanctions policy and will work on issues including Iran and Syria.
Expert says Guantanamo will never close
Todays News Headlines, 2013 (“‘Obama will never close Guantanamo,’ says analyst – BBC News”, Todays News Headlines,
4/30/1, http://www.rapidnewsupdate.com/obama-will-never-close-guantanamo-says-analyst-bbc-news/8939)
US President Barack Obama has pledged a new push to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid a growing prisoner
hunger strike there. The BBC’s Mishal Husain was joined by Robin Simcox from the Henry Jackson Society, a UK think tank,
and lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who defends many Guantanamo detainees, including some of those on hunger strike at
the moment. Mr Simcox does not believe that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be closed. “Indefinite detention
actually is probably part of the legal landscape now,” he says. “I don’t believe there’s going to be a president, especially
not President Obama, who shuts down Guantanamo Bay.”
Obama cannot close Guantanamo alone
Crowley, 2013 (Michael Crowley, senior correspondent for TIME. He previously covered domestic politics and foreign policy for The
New Republic, and was also a reporter at the Boston Globe. He has also written for such publications as New York magazine, GQ,
Slate, and the New York Times magazine, “Can Obama End the War on Terror?”, Time, 5/24/13,
http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/24/can-obama-end-the-war-on-terror/)
But while Obama has an obviously sincere desire to bring the war against al Qaeda to a close and close the books on
Guantanamo, however, he also lacks the power to make these things happen on his own. The future of the terror war that
Obama inherited from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney depends on some very open questions: Will Republicans Play Along? The
initial GOP response to Obama’s speech was skeptical. “The theme of the speech was that this war is winding down… [but] the
enemy is morphing and spreading, there are more theaters of conflict today than in several years,” said GOP Senator Lindsey
Graham of South Carolina. “The President’s speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory,” declared Saxby Chambliss of
Georgia. Some of Obama’s plans require no Republican sign-off—he can change the rules governing drone strikes, for instance, by
presidential directive. And he can transfer the dozens of Yemeni detainees at the camp who have been cleared for release back to
their home country on his own. But fully shuttering Gitmo will require him to win Congress’s permission to move dozens of
the camp’s 166 inmates from Cuba into the U.S., something now barred by law. At the moment, some Republicans seem
no more interested in helping him than they did when Obama first proposed this idea in 2009. “GITMO must stay open for
business,” Chambliss said Thursday. Others are more amenable, though still skeptical: House Armed Services Chairman Buck
McKeon, who would play a lead role in any Congressional action, calls himself “open to a proposal from the president, but that plan
has to consist of more than political talking points.”
HR Cred Advantage
US Cred Low
US Isn’t Seen as Valid Human Rights Actor—Mexico Proves
Fainaru and Booth 9 (Steve and William, reporters Washington Post Foreign Service,
7-9-2009, Washington Post, “Mexican Army Using Torture to Battle Drug Traffickers,
Rights Groups Say”, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070804197.html?sid=ST2009070804333)
Under the Mérida Initiative, a $1.4 billion counter-narcotics package that President George W. Bush requested in
June 2007, 15 percent of the money cannot be released until the secretary of state reports that Mexico
has made progress on human rights. The requirements include the prosecution of suspected human rights offenders, the
prohibition of testimony obtained through torture and regular consultations with independent human rights groups. The State Department's
Mérida human rights report will be delivered to Congress within weeks, according to a U.S. official involved in the process. The official described
Mexico's human rights record as "a mixed bag " and said it remains unclear whether the report will be
enough to satisfy the conditions to release the money. "This is the hardest part" of Mérida, the official said. At least $90.7
million allocated to Mexico to fight drugs cannot be released unless Congress accepts the State Department's findings. An additional $24 million is also
subject to Mérida's human rights conditions in the supplemental budget package that President Obama signed on June 24. Part of the Mérida funding
is for inspection equipment, police training and support for the Mexican military. With the Mexican government and governors from U.S. border states
clamoring for more assistance -- drug violence killed 769 Mexicans in June, one of the worst months since Calderón took office, in December 2006 -the State Department is hoping that Congress will release the money despite human rights concerns, according to the U.S. official, who expressed
frustration that the Mexican government has not provided more information about the army's progress, including the number of human rights cases that
have been prosecuted. "The military justice system in Mexico is very opaque; it is very hard to get a handle on how many cases have been brought
and what has been their disposition," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The Mexican
government has long opposed the human rights conditions included in the Mérida agreement, and U.S. officials expect a backlash if Congress refuses
to release the money. Many
Mexican human rights activists do not support the conditions, noting that
they were imposed by a U.S government widely accused of torturing prisoners in Iraq,
Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "It really takes a lot of cynicism, a lot of hypocrisy, for
the United States to say, 'We will give you money to fight drug trafficking as long as you respect
human rights,' " said José Raymundo Díaz Taboada, director of the Acapulco office of the
Collective Against Torture and Impunity, which documents abuses in Guerrero.
Guantanamo Undermines US Human Rights Credibility —Russia Proves
Kravchenko 13 (Stepan, writer for Bloomberg, 1-18-13, Bloomberg, “Russia Responds to U.S. Blacklist With ‘Guantanamo
List’” http://www.speroforum.com/a/7440/Rights-report-cites-diminishing-US-credibility#.Ue2BJY3qnGg”)
Dozens of U.S. citizens are now barred from entering Russia under the “Guantanamo list,” a retaliatory measure for
U.S. sanctions on Russian officials suspected of involvement in the death of an anti-corruption lawyer, Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister
Sergei Ryabkov said. “We made a decision to get the usual list wider, and called it ‘The Guantanamo list’ for convenience,”
Ryabkov said today by phone. “It’s a label. Like Johnnie Walker.” The U.S. Congress last month imposed a visa
ban and asset freeze on Russian officials allegedly linked to the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other humanrights abuses. Lawmakers in Moscow responded by banning U.S. adoptions of Russian children in a bill that Putin signed into
law on Dec. 28. Magnitsky, an attorney for London-based Hermitage Capital, alleged that Russian officials had committed a $230 million tax fraud. He
was arrested in November 2008 and denied medical care during 11 months in pre-trial detention on fabricated tax- evasion charges, according to a
Russian presidential human- rights body. He died at age 37 on Nov. 16, 2009.
Some 71 U.S. nationals are now barred from
entering Russia, an increase from 11 previously, Sergei Pushkov, a senior lawmaker, said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper
published today. A former head of the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was denied entry, Ryabkov said, without elaborating.
U.S citizen accused of kidnapping Russian nationals and committing crimes against Russian children are on the blacklist, as well as Guantanamo
President Vladimir Putin last month criticized “medieval” conditions at
Guantanamo Bay as he backed retaliation against the U.S. Magnitsky Act. “At Guantanamo, they
keep people in prison for years without any charges,” he told hundreds of journalists at a news conference in Moscow.
“People there go around in shackles, like in medieval times.”
managers, he said. Russian
Federal Government Ignores Human Rights Aspect of Guantanamo
Amnesty Interational 11(Amnesty International, 12-2011, Amnesty International Publications, “USA GUANTÁNAMO:
A DECADE OF DAMAGE TO HUMAN RIGHTS”, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/103/2011/en/43fe877f-92c6-44b8ad3e-4840db5d0852/amr511032011en.pdf)
Among other things, the ICCPR prohibits torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detention (thereby prohibiting secret detention and
enforced disappearance), unfair trial, and discrimination in the application of human rights. It also incorporates the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations. One can
see why the Department of Justice raised a red flag about the ICCPR in relation to the Guantánamo detentions, especially given the emphasis placed on this treaty by the USA
on the international stage. The ICCPR, the Bush administration proclaimed at the United Nations, was “the most important human rights instrument adopted since the UN
Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it sets forth a comprehensive body of human rights protections.”13 Not so important, however, that the USA felt it
Violations of the ICCPR and other human rights treaties came to
be part and parcel of the Guantánamo detentions. Detainees were subjected to torture or other ill-treatment
should apply and respect those protections for its own “war on terror” detainees.
either at the prison or before they arrived there. Prolonged incommunicado detention as well as possible enforced disappearances took place at Guantánamo as well as
. For years, hundreds of Guantánamo detainees were denied their right to
have a judge rule on the lawfulness of their detention. The few that faced criminal charges during the Bush years were not brought
elsewhere in the US detention system
before any ordinary US court of law; instead, for such prosecutions the government invented an ad hoc system of military commissions, applying rules that fell far short of
international fair trial standards. But, some might ask, is this not an old story? Interrogations at Guantánamo have all but ended, have they not, and anyway has not the ban on
torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment been reinforced by presidential order? The military commissions, now in their third incarnation since 2001, are surely
better than they once were, and the detainees have had access to habeas corpus review since 2008 when the US Supreme Court finally rejected the Bush administration’s
notion that foreign nationals held at Guantánamo had no right to challenge the lawfulness of their detentions in federal court. Are not unhelpful terms like “alien unlawful enemy
after 10
years, why is Amnesty International still talking about Guantánamo as a human rights problem? The answer is that the
detentions at Guantánamo, and the wider policies and practices of which they have been and
remain a part, continue to inflict serious damage on global respect for human rights. While Guantánamo
may have dropped from the news headlines, the human rights concerns associated with it are far from a finished story, as this report seeks to illooustrate. From day
one, the USA failed to recognize the applicability of human rights law to the Guantánamo
detentions. As o continue to hold detainees indefinitely without charge or criminal trial (or even after a detainee
is acquitted at a military commission trial), wherever it pleases. The damage, then, will continue as long as the actual policies and practices that Guantánamo
has come to symbolize remain. And while repetition of the promise to close Guantánamo is by now wearing thin, the
failure to meet this promise has allowed the domestic discourse to be dominated by the politics of fear. This has made the likelihood of
human rights principles being recognized and fully respected by the USA even more remote, and fed the possibility that
a future president might expressly decide to keep the facility in operation indefinitely. At least four would-be Republican successors to
President Obama said in televised debates in November 2011 that they would keep the
Guantánamo prison open if they were to become President.16
combatant” and “war on terror” now generally frowned upon by the administration, and is “unprecedented” transparency not one of its stated priorities?14 So,
US double-standards in human rights has sparked significant backlash
Li 13 (Su Li, a Beijing-based journalist for the Global Times. “US double-standards on human rights exposed” 21 April 2013,
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776486.shtml#.UfPfzo1OSSo)
The State Council Information Office issued a report on Sunday titled Human Rights Record of the
United States in 2012. This is the 14th consecutive time that China has hit back at Washington's
yearly assessment of human rights around the world. China observers are paying close attention
to this war of words over human rights, which has long been a source of tension between the two largest economies.
In the past couple of years, there has been a subtle change in the international rivalry over the human rights issue. In October
2012, Russia's Duma, the lower house of parliament, for the first time, held a three-hour hearing on US human
rights abuses and issued its first annual report criticizing US human rights violations. Last year
there was also a wave in which various countries, including China, Russia, Singapore, Venezuela, Cuba
and Colombia, questioned the credibility of Washington's judgment of worldwide human rights
conditions. The human rights issue is a worldwide problem, and it seems that both the offensive and defensive positions in this
arena are gradually shifting. The double standards that Washington has been exploiting on human rights
are clear-cut in its latest report as well. For instance, the report slams "deteriorating" human rights in China and
Vietnam while approving significant progress in Myanmar which is "in a historic transition toward democracy." The assessment is a
well-manipulated political tool. As to China specifically, there is an increasingly evident contrast between the human rights
conditions that the US accuses it of and those which the Chinese themselves feel in everyday life. Washington ignores the general
tendency of human rights record in China, but instead picks out several individual dissidents and from them concludes China's
"systematic" use of laws to silence individuals and suppress freedom. As experts have pointed out, among various strategic cards
the US has against China, a consistent human rights attack is the most cost-effective one. But the Chinese should not be overly
bothered by these periodic accusations. On the one hand, we should be open-minded to external criticism, which can be integrated
into the driving force of domestic progress. There is certainly vast room for us to solve domestic problems and improve human
rights. This will also help ease off strategic pressure from Washington. But on the other hand, we should stay cool-headed as China
cannot abandon its political characteristics. After all, the nation will never meet the standard set by Washington in
the human rights issue, for Washington's standard literally means to transplant the US model and
accomplishments with its own will.
US human rights abuses are used as justification for abuses in other countries
Nossel 12 (Suzanne Nossel is the executive director for Amnesty International USA. “Call on President Obama to keep his
earlier human rights promises” 7 November 2012. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_ details.asp?NewsID=20434)
Responding to the re-election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America, Suzanne Nossel said: “ When
President Obama was first elected in 2008, many human rights activists rejoiced. It had been eight long years
where the United States tortured, detained hundreds without charge and trial, and tried to justify the horrors of Abu Ghraib.
“President Obama’s first campaign for the White House offered the promise of an administration that would
recapture the United States’ credibility on human rights issues, bringing detention practices in line with
international law, repudiating secrecy and ensuring that human rights weren’t traded away in the name of national security. “More
simply, President Obama promised a new dawn of American leadership, one in which human rights would be given more than lipservice. “Unfortunately the first Obama administration broke many of its promises when human
rights were pitted against national security interests. When it comes to countering terrorism, President Obama
has hidden behind national security imperatives to shield administration policy in secrecy and pursue programmes such as
expanded drone use. “President Obama’s second term will determine whether the post-9/11 stains on the United States’ human
rights record are an anomaly or the new normal. It was Mitt Romney who said of the challenges of counter-terrorism that ‘we can't
kill our way out of this mess’, but too many of President Obama’s policies are an attempt to do just that. “Unlawful killings
and other human rights violations sanctioned by the US government undermine the rule of law
globally, creating a climate in which other countries can point to a double-standard to justify their
own human rights abuses with the refrain, ‘if the US government does that, why shouldn’t we.’ “The
United States’ power and influence should derive from its commitment to the rule of law and to advancing human rights and dignity.
President Obama should not trade that away at any price. “President Obama has been given a second chance to
keep his promises on human rights. Don’t blow it.”
US Cred Low – Hunger Strikes
Force Feeding at Guantanamo is Torture
Cohn 13(Majorie, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the
National Lawyers Guild and deputy secretary general of the International Association of
Democratic Lawyers, 5-12-2013, Truth-out.org, “Death Is Preferable to Life at Obama's
Guantanamo”, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16328-death-is-preferable-to-life-atobamas-guantanamo)
More than 100 of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo are starving themselves to death. Twenty-three of them are being
force-fed. “They strap you to a chair, tie up your wrists, your legs, your forehead and tightly around the waist,” Fayiz Al-Kandari
told his lawyer, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard. Al-Kandari, a Kuwaiti held at Guantanamo for 11 years, has never been charged with a
crime. “The tube makes his eyes water excessively and blood begins to trickle from the nose. Once the tube passes his throat the
gag reflex kicks in. Warm liquid is poured into the body for 45 minutes to two hours. He feels like his body is going to convulse and
often vomits,” Wingard added. The United Nations Human Rights Council concluded that force-feeding
amounts to torture. The American Medical Association says that force-feeding violates medical
ethics. “Every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention, including life-sustaining interventions,” AMA
President Jeremy Lazarus wrote to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Yet President Barack Obama continues the tortuous
Bush policy of force-feeding hunger strikers. Although a few days after his first inauguration, Obama promised
to shutter Guantanamo, it remains open. “I continue to believe that we’ve got to close Guantanamo,” Obama declared
in his April 30 press conference. But, he added, “Congress determined that they would not let us close it.” Obama signed a bill that
Congress passed which erected barriers to closure. According to a Los Angeles Times editorial, “Obama has refused to
expend political capital on closing Guantanamo. Rather than veto the defense authorization bills that
have limited his ability to transfer inmates, he has signed them while raising questions about
whether they intruded on his constitutional authority.”
Hunger Strike Highlights Human Rights Abuses and Lawlessness of Guantanamo
NYTimes 13(New York Times Editorial Board, 4-5-2013, New York Times, “Hunger Strike at Guantánamo”,
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/hunger-strike-at-guantanamo-bay.html?hp&_r=3&)
The hunger strike that has spread since early February among the 166 detainees still at Guantánamo Bay is again
exposing the lawlessness of the system that marooned them there. The government claims that around 40 detainees
are taking part. Lawyers for detainees report that their clients say around 130 detainees in one part of the prison have taken part.
Related News The number matters less than the nature of the protest, however: this is a collective act
of despair. Prisoners on the hunger strike say that they would rather die than remain in the
purgatory of indefinite detention. Only three prisoners now at Guantánamo have been found guilty of any crime, yet the
others also are locked away, with dwindling hope of ever being released. Detainees there have gone on hunger
strikes many times since the facility opened in 2002. A major strike in 2005 involved more than 200 detainees. But those
earlier actions were largely about the brutality of treatment the detainees received. The protest
this time seems more fundamental. Gen. John Kelly of the Marines, whose Southern Command oversees Guantánamo
Bay, explained the motivation of the detainees at a Congressional hearing last month by saying, “They had great optimism
that Guantánamo would be closed” based on President Obama’s pledge in his first campaign, but
they are now “devastated” that nothing has changed. For 86 detainees, this is a particular outrage. They were
approved for release three years ago by a government task force, which included civilian and military agencies responsible for
national security. But Congress outrageously has limited the president’s options in releasing them , through
a statute that makes it very difficult to use federal money to transfer Guantánamo prisoners
anywhere. Fifty-six of those approved for release are Yemenis. The government, however, has said it will not release them to
Yemen for the “foreseeable future,” apparently because they might fall under the influence of people antagonistic to the United
States. That false logic would mean that no Yemenis could ever travel to this country, but that is not the case. The other 30
detainees approved for release are from different countries, though the government will not say where they are from. Over the past
decade, the government has sent detainees to at least 52 countries, The Times and NPR have determined, so it surely can find
countries to take detainees who cannot be returned home. As for the remaining 80 prisoners, the three who have been convicted
and the 30 or so who are subjects of active cases or investigations can be transferred to a military or civilian prison. The rest are
in indefinite detention — a legal limbo in which they are considered by the government to be too dangerous to release and
too difficult to prosecute. Such detention is the essence of what has been wrong with Guantánamo from
the start. The cases of these detainees must be reviewed and resolved according to the rule of
law. The government is force-feeding at least 10 of the hunger strikers. International agreements among doctors say doctors must
respect a striker’s decision if he makes “an informed and voluntary refusal” to eat. But under American policy, Guantánamo doctors
cannot adhere to those principles. The Obama administration justifies the force-feeding of detainees as protecting their safety and
welfare. But the truly humane response to this crisis is to free prisoners who have been approved for
release, end indefinite detention and close the prison at Guantánamo.
Gitmo Internal
US credibility is shot due to scandals at Guantanamo Bay
Thomas C. Hilde (Professor at University of Maryland School of Public Policy), 5-30-09, Heinrich Boil Stiftung,
http://www.lb.boell.org/downloads/Beyond_Guantanamo.pdf
How to restore the credibility of a country whose foundations and self-understanding are based on the
universality of freedom and human rights, but that has violated precisely those rights by practicing
torture in Guantánamo and other prisons around the world? The image of the United States as a role model of
liberal democracy has suffered tremendously over the last eight years. In the name of the global war on
terror, former President Bush suspended the law for those detained as possible terrorists. Even though
President Obama’s promise to close Guantánamo is recognized by the international community as a first
step towards restoring U.S. credibility, several problems require comprehensive policy solutions:
How to proceed with detainees that are considered to be dangerous? What to do with detainees
who are cleared of suspicion, but might face torture in their country of origin? How to cope with evidence that
is derived from torture?
Closing Guantanamo Key to Restoring US Credibility
VOA 9 (Voice of America, 10-27-2009, quoting Kenneth Roth director of Human Rights Watch, “Human Rights Watch Says
Guantanamo Undermines US on Rights Issues “, http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2007-03-06-voa15-66542732/554239.html)
But Roth said the
problem of hypocrisy emerges on other rights issues, with the United States holding
terror suspects without trial at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and perhaps elsewhere, and tolerating
coercive interrogation techniques. "It is very difficult for the U.S. government today to condemn a government for the use of torture, when the CIA itself
has tortured people using techniques such as water-boarding in the secret CIA detention facilities," Roth said. "Similarly it is
hard for the U.S.
government to protest against the detention of somebody without trial, when it has hundreds of
people held for up to five years in Guantanamo with a trial only a distant hope." Roth criticized Bush administration
plans to try terror suspects through military commissions, a concept he said fell well short of accepted judicial standards and which he predicted would
eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said at least some of the U.S. detainees have probably committed serious crimes and
deserve to be brought to trial. But he said they should be trials in which the defendant is allowed to challenge all the evidence and testimony against
him, and in which hearsay evidence is invalid. As to the
Guantanamo facility, which has housed terrorism suspects
since early 2002, Roth said that should be shut down outright. "Guantanamo should simply be
closed," he said. "I mean it has become a symbol of injustice. It is a scar on America's reputation
around the world. And there is no reason what anyone should continue to be held there. People should either be tried before a fair and proper
tribunal or they should be released."
Guantanamo Imperils US’s Moral Standing
Human Rights First 13 (Human Rights First, 7-23-2013, Human Rights First,
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/HRF-Letter-RML-GTMO.pdf)
The retired military leaders note that the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo – acts that violated the Geneva
Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and domestic laws – diminished the
United States’ moral standing in the world, and as long as the prison remains open, it will be a
dark reminder of our past. They also note that the ongoing military commissions at Guantanamo [cut: in
their many incarnations,] remain illegitimate in the eyes of the world. “When the presiding judge cannot answer
whether the U.S. Constitution applies and the CIA was discovered to have the ability to censor the proceedings, among so many
other delays and questions, the commissions are seen as a poor substitute for justice,” they wrote. In addition, the retired admirals
and generals say Guantanamo imperils the United States’ ability to secure cooperation and gain
intelligence from American allies abroad. They note, “Both the military and the intelligence community are only as
effective as the information we collect from partners on the ground, who remain less likely to cooperate so long as the United States
turns a blind eye to the rule of law.” With regard to closing the facility, the retired military leaders note that
there remains a clear path forward. The 2010 Guantanamo Review Task Force, which included all
the relevant security and intelligence agencies, provided a comprehensive framework for
progress toward closing Guantanamo. The admirals and generals note that work should continue
unimpeded by statutory transfer restrictions that impede the work of the Defense, State and
intelligence agencies and that U.S. security officials and partners abroad can mitigate the risk of
any transfers.
A2 “Alt Cause”
Plan Is First Step
HRW 08 (Human Rights Watch, 11-16-2008, HRW.org, “US: Human Rights Agenda for the New Administration”,
http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/11/14/us-human-rights-agenda-new-administration)
The Bush administration's methodical disregard for the human rights of those detained in the campaign against
terrorism has been disastrous for the global human rights cause , diminishing the moral standing of a government
that traditionally was an ally in promoting human rights, and setting a powerful negative example for abusive governments around
the world. Undoing the damage done will require a public commitment to a new course and firm
measures to implement that policy. As first steps, President-elect Obama should: Close the
Guantanamo Bay detention facility, prosecuting those detainees implicated in terrorism and
sending the others to their home countries or appropriate countries of resettlement, including the
United States. Prosecute terrorism suspects in regular federal courts rather than before military commissions, which have failed
to provide basic due process. Reject preventive detention (detention without trial) as an alternative to prosecuting terrorism
suspects. Reject the "global war on terrorism" as a legal basis for detaining individuals outside a recognizable battlefield to deprive
them of basic criminal justice rights.
Symbolism of Guantanamo is KEY—All other benefits follows from it
Dodd 07 (Chris, former US Senator of CT, 6-21-2007, Hearing before the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe,
“GUANTANAMO: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP” )
I want to thank Senator Cardin and Congressman Hasting, cochairs of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, for holding today’s critically
important hearing. As we all know, sseveral hundred individuals are still being held as enemy combatants by the United States
government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to a Red Cross report, prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have
been subjected to ‘‘cruel, inhumane and degrading’’ treatment that is ‘‘tantamount to torture.’’ Among the abuses cited in
the report are beatings, extended periods of isolation, sexual humiliation, and prolonged use of ‘‘stress positions.’’ Guantanamo
Bay and the grotesque abuses that have occurred there are not simply a moral stain on our
country. More than that, the existence of this prison, which was purposely designed to circumvent public and legal
scrutiny into the treatment and trying of detainees, significantly hampers the credibility of our nation as we
battle against extremists around the world. It also significantly undermines US human rights
leadership, and it provides excuses for even the most grotesque violators of human rights. I firmly
believe that we must make every effort to protect our country from potential threats to our national security. At the same time , we
must make sure that we uphold our democratic ideals. It is simply a false choice to choose
between security and morality, between safety and legality. That is why I introduced the Restoring the
Constitution Act of 2007, which, among other things, would have restored the right of Habeas Corpus to all those held by the United
States government, and would have also restored the Geneva Conventions, both of which were stripped from the Military
Commissions Act which was shamefully enacted into law this past fall. But more than just restoring these key rights,
we need to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as soon as possible. I commend Senators
Feinstein and Harkin who have both introduced separate legislation that would mandate the closure of Guantanamo bay. These two
bills, both of which I have cosponsored, would provide for the transfer of those who are deemed to be dangerous to other legally
credible and established facilities for prosecution. This Administration made an egregious mistake in opening this facility, and
compounded that mistake by purposely eschewing long held national law and international treaty obligations to protect the human
rights of all individuals. The time has long passed for this facility to be closed and for us to restore the
rule of law, and the moral and political credibility of US human rights leadership around the world.
Guantanamo is a Symbol of US Moral Decrepitude
RFE/RL 7 (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1-12-2007, Radio Free Europe/Radio
Liberty reprinted in Spero News, “Rights report cites diminishing US credibility”,
http://www.speroforum.com/a/7440/Rights-report-cites-diminishing-UScredibility#.Ue2BJY3qnGg)
But this year's report takes particular aim at the United States. The United States -- according to Human Rights Watch -used to lead the world in promoting global human rights. But the group argues that because of the antiterrorism
policies of U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. credibility on rights has been "utterly undermined." For
Human Rights Watch, America's Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, where foreigners identified as "enemy
combatants" have been detained indefinitely without trial, symbolizes Washington's abdication of moral
leadership. So does the use of what Bush has called "alternative" interrogation procedures. Among the most
controversial is holding detainees' heads under water for prolonged periods of time -- which Human Rights Watch calls a "classic
torture technique." "The reason Human Rights Watch selected the fifth anniversary of Guantanamo to
launch our annual report is because it really highlights the leadership crisis that is facing the
human rights movement these days at the governmental level," HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth told
RFE/RL. "Traditionally, we're used to looking toward the United States to take the lead, on at least many human rights issues. But
because of Guantanamo, because of the Bush administration's policy of using torture and detention without trial as a way of
combating terrorism, U.S. credibility on human rights is simply shot in many parts of the world. It is
dramatically undermined. And so there's an urgent need for someone else to come in and fill that leadership void."
Guantanamo is a Symbol of US Human Rights Abuses
Bauxhall 8(Peter, writer for ISN Security Watch, 4-15-2008, International Security and Relations Network, “US: Human rights
and realpolitik”)
Progressives in the US are bemoaning their country's besmirched human rights image of the last few years. They blame the Bush
administration, of course, pointing to atrocities such as Abu Ghraib and the absence of constitutional rights for
Guantanamo detainees as examples of human rights abuses by the US government. These circumstances have
damaged the credibility of the US to advocate for human rights elsewhere. "It is not the Statue of
Liberty anymore that people associate with the United States," said John Podesta, president of the
Center for American Progress, a liberal, Washington-based think tank, at a human rights conference held last week at
Georgetown University in Washington. "It is the black hole of Guantanamo and the picture of an Iraqi
standing on a box with electrodes attached to him at Abu Ghraib."
A2 “Conditions Have Improved”
Changes Obama made aren’t enough – torture is ongoing and perceived
Martin, 11 (Patrick, “White House, US media stonewall on Guantanamo,” World Socialist Website, WSWS,
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/04/pers-a27.html, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Obama gets a clean bill of health, according to the Times: “The torture
has stopped. The inmates’ cases
have been reviewed. But the detention camp in Cuba remains a festering sore on this country’s
global reputation. Hampered by ideologues and cowards in Congress, President Obama has made scant progress in healing
it.Ӧ Actually, the torture is ongoing. Indefinite detention without prospect of either a judicial hearing
or eventual release is itself a form of torture. So are the constant interrogations to which many of the
prisoners are still subjected, although some of them are more than nine years removed from any association with Al Qaeda,
and therefore can hardly be encompassed by the “ticking time bomb” scenario invariably cited as justification for their treatment.¶
The detention camp at Guantanamo should be closed immediately, and all those jailed there released or tried through a civilian
judicial process in which basic democratic rights and constitutional norms are observed in full. Those US government officials, both
civilian and military, who are responsible for the creation and continuation of this concentration camp should themselves be held to
account before an international tribunal.
Closure Key
Closing Guantanamo Signals the US’s Intent to Respect Human Rights
Shuttack 08(John, CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign policy at Tufts University,
Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from 1993 to 1998, and Ambassador to the Czech Republic
from 1998 to 2000, 11-2008, American Bar Association,
http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/human_rights_fall2008/hr_fall0
8_shattuck.html)
Fortunately, history shows that U.S. credibility on human rights can be restored when our
government’s policies reflect our nation’s values. A series of bipartisan initiatives during five recent presidencies––
three Republican and two Democratic––illustrates the point. President Gerald Ford signed the Helsinki Accords, paving the way for
international recognition of the cause of human rights inside the Soviet bloc. President Jimmy Carter mobilized democratic
governments to press for the release of political prisoners by repressive regimes. President Ronald Reagan signed the Con-vention
against Torture and persuaded a Republican-dominated Senate to ratify it. President George H. W. Bush joined with other
governments in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to nurture new democracies and respect for human rights
following the end of the Cold War. And President Bill Clinton worked with NATO and the UN to implement the Genocide Conven-tion
and bring an end to the human rights catastrophe in the Balkans. Mr. President, you can restore U.S. influence by
reconnecting the nation’s values and policies on human rights and the rule of law. Among the
initiatives that you might take are the following. Human Rights Law Enforcement. You should announce that the United
States is bound by the human rights treaties and conventions that it has ratified and adopted as
domestic law, including the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights. You should follow through with your commitment to close the detention center at Guantanamo and transfer
detainees to this country for determinations whether to try them in U.S. courts or release them.
Fully complying with the Geneva Conventions would not preclude the United States from trying
detainees in military commissions under constitutional standards of due process, nor would it
restrict the government’s authority to conduct lawful interrogations to obtain intelligence information about terrorist activities.
Closing Guantanamo Key to US Credibility
Carter 08 (Jimmy, former President of the United States, 12-10-2008, The Carter Center orginially published in the
Washington Post, “Obama's Human Rights Opportunity”
Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With a new administration and a new vision
coming to the White House, we have the opportunity to move boldly to restore the moral authority behind
the worldwide human rights movement. But the first steps must be taken at home. President-elect
Barack Obama has pledged to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and end torture, which can be accomplished by
executive orders to close the prison and by enforcing existing prohibitions against torture by any U.S. representative, including FBI
and CIA agents. The detention of people secretly or indefinitely and without due process must cease, and their cases should be
transferred to our courts, which have proved their competence in trying those accused of terrorism. Further, a nonpartisan expert
commission should be named to conduct a thorough review of U.S. practices related to unwarranted arrest, torture, secret detention,
extraordinary rendition, abandonment of habeas corpus and related matters. Acknowledging to the world that the
United States also has made mistakes will give credence to our becoming "a more perfect union" --
a message that would resonate worldwide. Together, these actions will help us restore our
nation's principles and embolden others abroad who want higher moral standards for their own
societies. By putting its house in order, the United States would reclaim its moral authority and
wield not only the political capital but also the credibility needed to engage in frank but respectful bilateral
dialogues on the protection of human rights as central to world peace and prosperity.
Closing Guantanamo is a crucial first step to restoring US credibility
Suzanne Trimel (Director media relations of Amnesty International USA), 11-12-2012, Amnesty International, “With United
States Election to U.N. Human Rights Council, Obama Administration Must Regain Credibility and Fix Approach to CounterTerrorism”, http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/press-releases/with-united-states-election-to-un-human-rights-council-obamaadministration-must-regain-credibility)
(New York) -- Suzanne Nossel, Amnesty International USA executive director, made the following
comment today in response to the United States’ election to the United Nations Human Rights Council: "The most
important contribution the United States can now make to the cause of human rights is a
determined effort to regain its own credibility. While we welcome the pledges and commitments the United States
has made to win election to the Council, the U.S. cannot urge the rule of law , accountability and transparency in
Geneva, while exempting itself from international standards and shielding key aspects of its own conduct from
scrutiny. The continued indefinite detention without criminal charges of 166 men at the Guantanamo
Bay naval base, the ongoing military commission proceedings that fail to meet fair trial standards, a drone program shrouded in
secrecy and the lack of accountability for torture and disappearances in the so-called 'war on terror'
undermine human rights and undercut the legitimacy of the U.S.’s voice at the Council."
Gitmo strains US record of having just human rights
Diane Dimond (Journalist, reporter, television host), 07-20-13, NoozHawk, “Diane Dimond: It’s Time to Close Guantanamo
Bay, Transfer Prisoners to U.S,” http://www.noozhawk.com/article/diane_dimond_guantanamo_bay
We like to think of ourselves as a great nation, a compassionate country that puts human rights at the
forefront of everything we do. Then, how in the world can we defend what the United States
continues to do at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba? The American prison for enemy combatants was established in January
2002 by then-President George W. Bush as a place to park detainees who were connected with the radical Muslim movement
waging war against America. A total of 779 prisoners have been sent to Gitmo , and today — 11 years later —
we still hold 166 of them. No charges have been filed against most of these men. Years ago, about half of them were
cleared for return to their home countries (or a willing third-party country), yet they still sit at Gitmo. President Barack
Obama made an election promise to close Guantanamo Bay back in 2007, but he was blocked by Congress, which passed
restrictions on what could be done to transfer the prisoners. In April, Obama promised again to pressure Congress, saying, “The
idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried — that is contrary to who we are, it is
contrary to our interests and it needs to stop.” The reality, however, is that it is unlikely our fractious Congress will do anything. So,
the 166 men at Gitmo remain in a protracted state of imprisoned limbo, and more than half of them have been on a prolonged
hunger strike. Over the years, their health has become so perilous at times that the U.S. military made the decision to strap them
down in chairs and force-feed them though tubes inserted in their noses. What have we wrought? Are human rights
activists correct when they say America’s policies have left the detainees so completely hopeless
and suicidal that they are driven to starve themselves to death ? Or are U.S. military officials right when they
say the prisoners denying themselves food is just another weapon in their arsenal to paint America as the Great Satan? I don’t know
the answer. Most likely it is a combination of the two. But the U.S. practice of forcible feeding has been roundly condemned by the
World Medical Association, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the American Medical Association, which declared
the forced feeding violates “core ethical values of the medical profession.” Two Democratic senators — Dianne Feinstein of
California and Richard Durbin of Illinois — have written to Obama, asking him to order an immediate stop to the “painful, humiliating
and degrading process.” In a most unusual step, a federal court judge named Gladys Kessler, ruling on a Gitmo prisoner’s request
for an injunction against his forced-feeding, made a direct appeal to Obama to take action on the issue that has been going on for so
long. I wonder if the average American knows about the detainees’ individual stories and what has happened to them since they’ve
been in U.S. custody. Their cases are shocking. The longest continuous hunger-striker appears to Abdul Rahman Shalabi, 35, a
Saudi man who reportedly has been largely tube-fed since 2005. Mohammed Bawazir, 33, a Yemeni, had a lawyer who went to U.S.
federal court to try to stop the forced-feeding of his client and lost. That was back in 2006. Another detainee, Tariq Ba Awdah,
originally from Yemen, has apparently been on an uninterrupted hunger strike since February 2007. According to the Miami Herald,
the 35-year-old wrote to his lawyer, “I haven’t tasted food for over six years.” Today, 45 Gitmo prisoners are being given
nourishment through forcibly inserted gastric tubes. Think of that in real-life terms. Every single day American soldiers are under
orders to scoop up these malnourished and skeletal prisoners, strap them down and insert tubes into their noses so nutrients can be
administered. I am positive that not one of those soldiers looks forward to that duty. There are recent reports that some of the other
hunger-strikers have begun to eat again, but military doctors told The New York Times they must be on hand to guard against
“refeeding syndrome,” which can be fatal when “undernourished people suddenly consume food.” Again, what have we wrought?
Are you sure that America — the great and benevolent super power that we think we are — couldn’t have come up with a better
solution for handling these prisoners? There is a part of me that is ashamed it has come to this. No right-thinking person advocates
opening up the gates of Gitmo and simply waving goodbye to these 166 prisoners. Some most likely still pose a threat to the United
States. But let’s redouble our efforts to do the right thing. A good first step would be to seriously concentrate on getting those lowrisk prisoners who have already been cleared for release out of Gitmo. Let’s face it, at this point Gitmo has imprisoned all
of us — imprisoned us in our own braggadocio that we are a country based on human rights.
Guantanamo Bay prison is living proof that we are not, and what has already happened there will be a
historic stain on our human rights record.
Russia Card
Kills US Credibility—Russia Proves
Kravchenko 13 (Stepan, writer for Bloomberg, 1-18-13, Bloomberg, “Russia Responds to U.S. Blacklist With ‘Guantanamo
List’” http://www.speroforum.com/a/7440/Rights-report-cites-diminishing-US-credibility#.Ue2BJY3qnGg”)
Dozens of U.S. citizens are now barred from entering Russia under the “Guantanamo list,” a retaliatory
measure for U.S. sanctions on Russian officials suspected of involvement in the death of an anti-corruption lawyer, Deputy
Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Ryabkov said. “We made a decision to get the usual list wider, and called it ‘The
Guantanamo list’ for convenience,” Ryabkov said today by phone. “It’s a label. Like Johnnie Walker.” The U.S.
Congress last month imposed a visa ban and asset freeze on Russian officials allegedly linked to the
death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other human-rights abuses. Lawmakers in Moscow responded by banning
U.S. adoptions of Russian children in a bill that Putin signed into law on Dec. 28. Magnitsky, an attorney for London-based
Hermitage Capital, alleged that Russian officials had committed a $230 million tax fraud. He was arrested in November 2008 and
denied medical care during 11 months in pre-trial detention on fabricated tax- evasion charges, according to a Russian presidential
human- rights body. He died at age 37 on Nov. 16, 2009. Some 71 U.S. nationals are now barred from entering
Russia, an increase from 11 previously, Sergei Pushkov, a senior lawmaker, said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper
published today. A former head of the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was denied entry, Ryabkov said,
without elaborating. U.S citizen accused of kidnapping Russian nationals and committing crimes against Russian children are on the
blacklist, as well as Guantanamo managers, he said. Russian President Vladimir Putin last month criticized
“medieval” conditions at Guantanamo Bay as he backed retaliation against the U.S. Magnitsky
Act. “At Guantanamo, they keep people in prison for years without any charges,” he told hundreds of
journalists at a news conference in Moscow. “People there go around in shackles, like in medieval times.”
Impact – Central Asia
Human rights cred stops Central Asian war
Hill 1 (Fiona, Fellow – Brookings Institution, “The Caucasus and Central Asia: How The United States and its Allies Can Stave
Off A Crisis”, Policy Brief #80, http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb80.htm)
In the next two years, the Caucasus and Central Asian states could become zones of interstate
competition similar to the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Economic and political crises, or the intensification of war in
Chechnya or Afghanistan, might lead to the "Balkanization" of the regions. This, in turn, could result in military intervention by any of
the major powers. Given the fact that both Turkey and Iran threatened intervention in the Caucasus at the peak of the NagornoKarabakh war in 1992-1993, this risk should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the Caucasus and Central Asian
states lack the capacity to tackle crises without outside help. Economic collapse has produced social
dislocation and extreme poverty. Widespread corruption and the entrenchment of aging leaders and their families have eroded
support for central governments and constrained the development of a new generation of leaders. The internal weakness of the
Caucasus and Central Asian states, combined with brutal regional wars, makes them extremely vulnerable to outside pressure—
especially from Russia. Although Russia itself is weak, it is far stronger than all the states combined, and while its direct influence
over their affairs has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remains the dominant economic, political, and military force.
The West will have to assist the states in bolstering their institutional capacity and in promoting cooperation among them.
American engagement remains crucial given its weight on the international stage, the potential threats
to its own security, and the fact that it has leverage in the regions. In spite of a few glitches, the Caucasus and Central
Asian states have been receptive to the United States and are among its few potential allies in a zone where other states are not so
amenable to U.S. activity. Regional countries need American moral and material support to maintain
independence in the face of increasing pressures, and its guidance in dealing with presidential
transition crises and addressing human rights abuses. Even with limited political and financial resources, U.S.
leadership can do a great deal to defuse regional tensions and mitigate problems. However, this will
only be possible if a policy is defined early and communicated clearly, if there is a particular focus on partnership with European
allies in addressing regional challenges, and if Russia is encouraged to become a force for stability rather than a factor for instability
in the regions.
Global nuclear war
Blank 99 (Steven, Professor of Research – Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Oil and Geopolitics in the
Caspian Region)
experience suggests Moscow will even threaten a Third World War if there is Turkish
intervention in the Transcaucasus and the 1997 Russo-Armenian Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual
Past
Assistance and the 1994 Turkish-Azerbaijani Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation suggest just such a possibility. Conceivably, the
two larger states could then be dragged in to rescue their allies from defeat. The Russo-Armenian
treaty is a virtual bilateral military alliance against Baku, in that it reaffirms Russia’s lasting military presence in
Armenia, commits Armenia not to join NATO, and could justify further fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh or further military
pressure against Azerbaijan that will impede energy exploration and marketing. It also reconfirms Russia’s
determination to resist an expanded U.S. presence and remain the exclusive regional hegemon. Thus, many
structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the
Transcaucasus. Many Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have great potential
for unintended escalation. Big powers often fear obliged to rescue their proxies and protégés. One or
another big power may fail to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence,
commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well
established or clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises about intervening in the Karabakh
War on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in such a case. This
confirms the observations of Jim Hoagland, the international correspondent of the Washington Post, that “future wars
involving Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in
ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia.” Unfortunately, many such causes for conflict prevail
across the Transcaspian. Precisely because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against
Russia, or if it could conceivably
trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic
nature of Russia’s declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major war is higher here than almost
anywhere else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China.
Impact – China
Human rights credibility key to US cool war with China
Feldman 5-19 (Noah, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, “How Guantanamo Affects China: Our Human Rights
Hypocrisies,” Salon 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/how_guantanamo_affects_china_our_human_rights_hypocrisies/)
The emerging historical moment is creating a new context for the rhetoric and practice of human
rights. For the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States now has a major
incentive to promote the international human rights agenda. So long as China continues to violate
human rights, there may be no better ideological tool for the United States to gain advantage
under cool war circumstances. To understand the trajectory of how human rights will matter and be used in the coming
era — and to predict how China will respond — we need to turn back to the origins of our ideas and practices of human rights. The
combination of sincere belief and cynical manipulation in the human rights realm goes back to the end of World War II and the
Cold War, and it demonstrates how power politics will necessarily shape the development of human
rights in the future. Cold Rights Since the Nuremburg tribunals, it has been accepted in principle that the world should try to
bring to justice the worst violators of international humanitarian law, which applies in wartime. The Nazi trials were not all they are
sometimes remembered to be, and many contemporary observers believed they were little more than victors’ justice. Nevertheless,
they did create an important new precedent. For the first time, members of a government were held criminally responsible by an
international body for harms to individuals that they committed while in power. In this sense, at least, universal human rights were
demonstrated, declared, and acted upon. Then, from a practical standpoint, nothing much happened. Early in the Cold War, the
United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document, however, was not law. It was not even
international law. It was called a declaration because it was, in legal terms, a hopeful, aspirational statement of ideals, but it had no
enforcement mechanism and no legal commitment by the signatories to follow it. For most of the next twenty-five years, the topic of
human rights rarely figured in American political rhetoric at the international level. It is not hard to see why. Until 1954 the United
States had a formal, legal system of government-mandated segregation in place in many of its states. Until 1964 no federal law
expressly prohibited racial discrimination by businesses. The next decade was spent in the painful process of trying to negotiate
racial integration, not only in the American South, but in Northern states where segregation operated on a de facto basis even
though it had not been enshrined in law. During these years, the United States had a great interest in avoiding public discussions of
human rights. The Soviet Union, for its part, was able to point to race discrimination as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy. In the
middle of the 1970s, things began to change. Having greatly reduced its vulnerability to the charge of
institutional racism, the United States could use the ideology of human rights to attack the Soviet
Union. The presidential administration of Jimmy Carter began to institutionalize human rights criticism. Congress mandated
annual country reports to monitor human rights violations around the world, including among
U.S. allies. This was recognized at the time as something new, even humorous. Cartoonist and political commentator Garry
Trudeau created a new Doonesbury character — a pleasant, ineffectual human rights officer in the Carter State Department — and
had him present various absurd awards for human rights “compliance.” The effect of these cartoons was not primarily to accuse the
U.S. government of hypocrisy, but to note rather sweetly the irony that this Cold War power was beginning to speak
the language of rights instead of power. At the same time, Eastern European dissidents, at great
personal risk, signed documents like Charter 77 that condemned the Soviet system for violating
human rights, to which it had made a symbolic commitment in the 1975 Helsinki Accords . This was a
new strategy, a product of the Brezhnev era. The dissidents were making a play for Western attention and the
support of Western governments — and they got it. The human rights movement as a distinct, popular
social movement swung into gear. The movement to free Soviet Jewry marks a striking example of
Cold War human rights ideology. The movement primarily consisted of Jews in one country seeking the rights of Jews in
another country to practice Judaism and to emigrate to Israel. But it presented itself as a claim for the universal
human rights to the freedom of conscience and travel. Its target was the Soviet Union. Initially foreign
policy realists like Kissinger dismissed the movement; seeking détente, he told President Richard
Nixon in no uncertain terms that the United States had no national interest in helping Soviet
Jewry, even if they were to be gassed. Eventually, however, the movement managed to ally itself
with Cold War strategy. Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson successfully introduced legislation linking aid to the Soviet Union
with the freeing of Soviet Jewish dissidents. When the Cold War ended, the situation for human rights changed again. For the first
time since Nuremberg, where the Americans and the Soviets had cooperated in the aftermath of their World War II alliance, new
international tribunals were created to punish terrible wrongs. The international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda,
established in the 1990s, could not have happened during the Cold War, not because there were no massive human rights
violations or even genocides during that period, but because every rights violator and genocidal dictator was in the pocket of either
the United States or the Soviet Union. With the Soviets no longer on the scene, the United States and Western Europe could use
criminal tribunals to make some after-the-fact reparation for their failure to prevent horrible post–Cold War crimes. As the tribunals
were gathering steam, the Western European powers, with guarded U.S. participation, drafted the Rome Treaty, got signatories
from around the world, and created the International Criminal Court. This permanent body is supposed to provide a regularized
forum for doing the work performed by the special criminal tribunals erected after genocides. The ICC, too, would have been
inconceivable during the Cold War, when both superpowers would have worried that such an entity might indict their dictator clients,
to their own political detriment. When the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, its perceived interests regarding international
rights enforcement shifted once more. The Clinton administration had signed the Rome Treaty creating the ICC. Under George W.
Bush, the United States officially withdrew its signature. In the post-9/11 era, with two wars to fight, Americans worried that their
soldiers — or even their civilian leaders — might find themselves charged with war crimes before the ICC. Beneath the immediate
concern with the risks of violating international humanitarian law while war fighting lay a deeper structural reason for the United
States to worry about international law. As the dominant global power after the Soviet collapse, the United States could do more or
less what it wanted internationally. International law was therefore likely to be used to criticize the United States. Under these
circumstances, strengthening the human rights regime more generally might carry appreciable costs to American freedom of action.
Giving voice to this view, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called international law “a tool of the weak.” Scholars complained
about “lawfare,” the use of human rights law to achieve political or military aims. According to this vision, hampering U.S. freedom to
act amounted to abuse of the pure aims of human rights. To be sure, during this period of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the overall
U.S. position was ambivalence about international law and human rights, not total rejection. In fact, the U.S. government became
much more concerned about complying with the laws of war than it had ever been before. Although the executive branch violated
international law in Guantánamo, the U.S. Supreme Court, another branch of the government, held that international law had to be
applied there, at least insofar as it was incorporated into U.S. domestic law. The Court required hearings for detainees and then
struck down the special tribunals that the Bush administration created. International law played a role both times. Even under
George W. Bush, then, the U.S. government never wholly turned its back on the international rights
regime — because human rights law still served U.S. interests. Most of the time, under most
circumstances, the United States respects human rights much more than most nondemocracies.
That respect makes it more legitimate as an international actor, the same way violations make it
look illegitimate. For the United States to abandon human rights altogether would take away an
important source of international legitimacy. It would provide a long-term advantage to countries
that systematically violated or ignored human rights. The U.S. government , then, has always used
the ideology of human rights as a political tool, deployed when convenient and ignored otherwise.
It allied itself with human rights violators during the Cold War; during the war on terror, it justified its own
human rights violations by the necessity of protecting the security of the liberal democratic state. Today, now that the wars in Iraq
and Afghanistan have wound down and China has continued to rise, the U.S. interest in focusing on human rights looks much
stronger.
Impact – Ethics
Refusing to engage their complicity with human rights violations is a prior ethical
issue
Beversluis 89 (Eric H., Professor of Humanities – Aquinas College and Ph.D. in Philosophy of Education – Northwestern
University, “On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions”, Public Affairs Quarterly, 3(2), April, p. 18-19)
But how can a case for shunning be made on this view of morality? Whose interests (rights) does shunning protect? The shunner
may well have to sacrifice his interest, e.g., by foregoing a beneficial trade relationship, but whose rights are thereby protected? In
shunning there seem to be no “rights” that are protected. For shunning, as we have seen, does not assume that the resulting cost
will change the disapproved behavior. If economic sanctions against South Africa will not bring apartheid to an end, and thus will not
help the blacks get their rights, on what grounds might it be a duty to impose such sanctions? We find the answer when we note that
there is another “level” of moral duties. When Galtung speaks of “reinforcing... morality,” he has identified a duty that goes beyond
specific acts of respecting people's rights. The argument goes like this: There is more involved in respecting the
rights of others than not violating them by one’s actions. For if there is such a thing as a moral order,
which unites people in a moral community, then surely one has a duty (at least prima facie ) not
only to avoid violating the rights of others with one’s actions but also to support that moral order.
Consider that the moral order itself contributes significantly to people’s rights being respected. It does so
by encouraging and reinforcing moral behavior and by discouraging and sanctioning immoral
behavior. In this moral community people mutually reinforce each other’s moral behavior and thus
raise the overall level of morality. Were this moral order to disintegrate, were people to stop
reinforcing each other's moral behavior, there would be much more violation of people's rights.
Thus to the extent that behavior affects the moral order, it indirectly affects people's rights. And this is where shunning fits in.
Certain types of behavior constitute a direct attack on the moral order. When the violation of
human rights is flagrant, willful, and persistent, the offender is, as it were, thumbing her nose at the
moral order, publicly rejecting it as binding her behavior. Clearly such behavior, if tolerated by society, will weaken
and perhaps eventually undermine altogether the moral order. Let us look briefly at those three conditions which turn
immoral behavior into an attack on the moral order. An immoral action is flagrant if it is “extremely or deliberately conspicuous;
notorious, shocking.” Etymologically the word means "burning" or "blazing." The definition of shunning implies therefore that those
offenses require shunning which are shameless or indiscreet, which the person makes no effort to hide and no good-faith effort to
excuse. Such actions "blaze forth" as an attack on the moral order. But to merit shunning the action must also be, willful and
persistent. We do not consider the actions of the "backslider," the weak-willed, the one-time offender to be challenges to the moral
order. It is the repeat offender, the unrepentent sinner, the cold-blooded violator of morality whose behavior demands that others
publicly reaffirm the moral order. When someone flagrantly, willfully, and repeatedly violates the moral order, those
who believe in the moral order, the members of the moral community, must respond in a way that reaffirms
the legitimacy of that moral order. How does shunning do this? First, by refusing publicly to have to do with
such a person one announces support for the moral order and backs up the announcement with
action. This action reinforces the commitment to the moral order both of the shunner and of the other
members of the community. (Secretary of State Shultz in effect made this argument in his call for international sanctions on Libya in
the early days of 1986.) Further, shunning
may have a moral effect on the shunned person, even if the
direct impact is not adequate to change the immoral behavior. If the shunned person thinks of herself as part of the
moral community, shunning may well make clear to her that she is, in fact, removing herself from that community by the behavior in
question. Thus shunning may achieve by moral suasion what cannot be achieved by “force.”
Impact – Genocide
Human rights abuses lead to genocide
JBI 10 (The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. “Preventing Genocide and Mass Atrocities” June
2010, http://www.jbi-humanrights.org/jacob-blaustein-institute/preventing-genocide-and-mass-atrocities.html)
The Jacob Blaustein Institute’s Genocide Prevention Project is working to clarify the extent of state obligations in terms of genocide
prevention. At the request of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, JBI has under taken an extensive legal review,
including consultations with a team of legal specialists and human rights experts, of the many indicators of genocide in order
to identify the corresponding legal norms that can be invoked to remind governments of their obligations. The ‘risk factors’ consist
of a compilation of human rights abuses which have been recorded in the lead up to past genocides and their
corresponding legal norms. The precursors can include a history of mass atrocities in a particular country;
targeted violence against members of a particular group; the state-condoned use of dehumanizing,
discriminatory hate speech against members of a particular group; employment and education practices
that discriminate against specific groups; denial of citizenship to members of targeted groups; among other such
practices. This list is not exhaustive, and pre-genocidal situations will have significant contextual differences that will require
case-by-case analysis. The international community acknowledged the importance of establishing early warning mechanisms to
effectively prevent the onset of genocide, most recently in the World Summit Outcome Document of 2005. States must be reminded
that they have obligations to prevent genocide based on internationally accepted norms with which they are expected to comply.
They must be provided with the information necessary to make them aware of the precursors to genocide and of the preventive
steps they must take to halt potential genocidal acts. The importance and relevance of a normative framework for the prevention of
genocide will better equip the Special Advisor to respond to situations that may appear pre-genocidal. The ‘risk factors’ listed in the
Compilation are derived from international legal norms found in the major international and regional human rights treaties and
jurisprudence. The risk factors do not refer to random acts but to severe and systematic abuses of human
rights. Many of the rights associated with the risk factors are non-derogable as set forth in Article 4 of the International Covenant
on Civil and Political Rights. Though all of the risk factors in the compilation constitute violations of human
rights and humanitarian law, each one in and of itself is a “necessary but not sufficient causal factor” of genocide.
However, when one and/or more risk factors appears in combination with others and in certain circumstances
including deteriorating political, economic and legal conditions in a society, they may well contribute to the onset of
genocide. The presence of one or more risk factors therefore does not necessarily mean that genocide will take place,
but it should serve as an early warning to a state that it should take measures to mitigate the risk. The
Compilation of Norms is in its near-final stages of review. It will serve to clearly set out the legal basis for genocide prevention within
already existing norms of international law, and facilitate with identifying specific situations of possible concern.
Genocide necessitates humanitarian intervention, biggest impact in round
Kassner ’07 (Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Maryland, assistant professor University of Baltimore, “Rwanda and the
Moral Obligation of Humanitarian Intervention, “ University of Maryland, http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/6844/1/umi-umd4333.pdf)
Another reason I have for evaluating the moral obligations states and the international community
owed to the Rwandan people is directly related to my belief that there are circumstances under which
humanitarian intervention is not only permissible, but obligatory. The Rwandan genocide presents an
interesting case because it would seem that if we are ever to have duties or obligations to distant others that
give rise to an obligation to intervene it would be to prevent and protect against genocide. It might
be contended that an obligation of intervention to prevent death from starvation and extreme
poverty is just as likely a candidate for general acceptance as the obligation of intervention to
prevent genocide. I would agree that we have an obligation to aid distant others when preventable starvation or
extreme poverty threatens their lives, and I would agree that in certain cases where the starvation and impoverishment is due to
government corruption or the theft of foreign aid (“famine through corruption”) we may have an obligation to intervene. I
also believe, however, that there are a number of morally significant differences between
genocide, on the one hand, and famine through corruption, on the other, that make an obligation
to intervene in the case of genocide more readily defensible.
Cognizant bystanders have an ethical responsibility to intervene on behalf of the
victims
Vetlesen 2K (Arne Johan, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo, “Genocide: A Case For the Responsibility of the
Bystander,” Journal of Peace Research, July,
http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/424645?&Search=yes&searchText=vetlesen&searchText=arne&searchText=johan&lis
t=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Darne%2Bjohan%2Bvetlesen%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%
3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=75&returnArticleService=showFullText)
Most often, in cases of genocide, for every person directly victimized and killed there will be
hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions, who are neither directly targeted as victims nor
directly participating as perpetrators. The moral issues raised by genocide, taken as the illegal act
par excellence, are not confined to the nexus of agent and victim. Those directly involved in a
given instance of genocide will always form a minority, so to speak. The majority to the event will
be formed by the contemporary bystanders. Such bystanders are individuals; in their private and professional lives,
they will belong to a vast score of groups and collectives, some informal and closely knit, others formal and detached as far as
personal and emotional involvement are concerned. In the loose sense intended here, every contemporary citizen cognizant of a
specific ongoing instance of genocide, regardless of where in the world, counts as a bystander . Bystanders in this loose sense
are cognizant, through TV, radio, newspapers, and other publicly available sources of information, of
ongoing genocide somewhere in the world, but they are not - by profession or formal appointment - involved in it.
Theirs is a passive role, that of onlookers, although what starts out as a passive stance may, upon decision, convert into active
engagement in the events at hand. I shall label this category passive bystanders. This group should be distinguished from
bystanders by formal appointment: the latter bystanders have been professionally engaged as a 'third party' to the interaction
between the two parties directly involved in acts of genocide. The stance of this third party to an ongoing conflict,
even one with genocidal implications, is in principle often seen as one of impartiality and
neutrality, typically highlighted by a determined refusal to 'take sides'. This manner of principled noninvolvement is frequently viewed as highly meritorious (Vetlesen, 1998). A case in point would be UN personnel deployed to monitor
a ceasefire between warring par- ties, or (as was their task in Bosnia) to see to it that the civilians within a UN-declared 'safe area'
are effectively guaranteed 'peace and security', as set down in the mandate to establish such areas. By virtue of their assigned
physical presence on the scene and the specific tasks given to them, such (groups of) bystanders may be referred to as bystanders
by assignment What does it mean to be a contemporary bystander? To begin with, let us consider this question not from the
expected viewpoint - that of the bystander - but from the two viewpoints provided by the parties directly involved in the event. To put
it as simply as possible: From the viewpoint of an agent of genocide, bystanders are persons
possessing a potential (one needing to be estimated in every concrete case) to halt his ongoing actions. The
perpetrator will fear the bystander to the extent that he has reason to believe that the bystander will intervene to halt the action
already under way, and thereby frustrate the perpetrator's goal of eliminating the targeted group. That said, we immediately need to
differentiate among the different categories of bystanders introduced above. It is obvious that the more knowledgeable and
otherwise resourceful the bystander, the more the perpetrator will have reason to fear that the potential for such resistance will
translate into action, meaning a more or less direct intervention by military or other means deemed efficient to reach the objective of
halting the incipient genocide. Of course, one should distinguish between bystanders who remain inactive and those who become
actively engaged. Nonetheless, the point to be stressed is that, in principle, even the most initially passive and remote
bystander possesses a potential to cease being a mere onlooker to the events unfolding. Outrage
at what comes to pass may prompt the judgment that 'this simply must be stopped' and translate
into action promoting that aim. But is not halting genocide first and fore- most a task, indeed a
duty, for the victims themselves? The answer is simple: The sheer fact that genocide is happening
shows that the targeted group has not proved itself able to prevent it. This being so, responsibility
for halting what is now unfolding cannot rest with the victims alone; it must also be seen to rest
with the party not itself affected but which is knowledgeable about - which is more or less literally
witnessing - the genocide that is taking place. So whereas for the agent, bystanders represent the potential of
resistance, for the victims they may repre- sent the only source of hope left. In ethical terms, this is borne out in the
notion of responsibility of Emmanuel Levinas (1991), according to which responsibility grows
bigger the weaker its addressee. Of course, agents of genocide may be caught more or less in delicto flagrante. But in
the age of television - with CNN being able to film and even interview doers as well as victims on the spot, and broadcast live
to the entire television-watching world (such as was the case in the concentration camp Omarska in Bosnia in August 1992) (see
Gutman, 1993) - physical co-presence to the event at hand is almost rendered superfluous . One need not
have been there in order to have known what happened. The same holds for the impact of the day-to-day reporting from the ground
by newspaper journalists of indisputable reputation. In order to beknowledgeable about ongoing genocide, it suffices to watch the
television news or read the front pages of a daily newspaper. But, to be more precise, what exactly does it mean to act? What is to
count as an action? We need to look briefly at the philosophical literature on the notion of action - as well as the notion of agent
responsibility following from it - in order to get a better grasp of the moral issues involved in being a bystander to genocide, whether
passive or active.
Third parties legitimize genocide by failure to act
Vetlesen 2K (Arne Johan, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo, “Genocide: A Case For the Responsibility of the
Bystander,” Journal of Peace Research, July,
http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/424645?&Search=yes&searchText=vetlesen&searchText=arne&searchText=johan&lis
t=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Darne%2Bjohan%2Bvetlesen%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%
3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=75&returnArticleService=showFullText)
'I never forget', says Paul Ricoeur in Oneself as Another, 'to speak of humans as acting and
suffering The moral problem', he continues, 'is grafted onto the recognition of this essential
dissymmetry between the one who acts and the one who undergoes, culminat- ing in the violence
of the powerful agent.' To be the 'sufferer' of a given action in Ricoeur's sense need not be negative; either 'the sufferer
appears as the beneficiary of esteem or as the victim of disesteem, depending on whether the agent proves to be someone who
distributes rewards or punishments'. Since there is to every action an agent and a sufferer (in the sense given), action is interaction;
its structure is interper- sonal (Ricoeur, 1992: 145). But this is not the whole picture. Actions are also omitted,
endured, neglected, and the like; and Ricoeur takes these phenomena to remind us that on the
level of interaction, just as on that of subjective understanding, not acting is still acting:
neglecting, forgetting to do something, is also letting things be done by someone else, sometimes
to the point of criminality. (Ricoeur, 1992: 157) Ricoeur's systematic objective is to extend the theory of action from acting
to suffering beings; again and again he emphasizes that 'every action has its agents and its patients' (1992: 157). Ricoeur's
proposed extension certainly sounds plausible. Regrettably, his proposal stops halfway. The vital insight
articulated, albeit not developed, in the passages quoted is that not acting is still acting. Brought
to bear on the case of genocide as a reported, ongoing affair, the inaction making a difference is
the inaction of the bystander to unfolding genocide. The failure to act when confronted with such
action, as is involved in accomplishing genocide, is a failure which carries a message to both the
agent and the sufferer: the action may proceed. Knowing, yet still not acting, means granting
acceptance to the action. Such inaction entails 'letting things be done by someone else' - clearly, in
the case of acknowledged genocide, 'to the point of criminality', to invoke one of the quotes from Ricoeur. In
short, inaction here means complicity; accordingly, it raises the question of responsibility, guilt,
and shame on the part of the inactive bystander, by which I mean the bystander who decides to
remain inactive. In the view I am advancing, the theory of action is satisfactorily extended only when it is recognized that the
structure of action is triadic, not dyadic. It takes two to act, we are tempted to say - no more and no less. But is an action really the
exclusive possession - a private affair - between the two parties immediately affected as agent and sufferer? For one thing, the
repercussions of a particular piece of action are bound to reach far beyond the immediate dyadic setting. As Hannah Arendt (1958)
famously observed, to act is to initiate, to make a new beginning in the world, to set in motion - and open-endedly so. Only the start
of a specific action allows precise localization in space and time, besides our attributing it to a particular agent, as her property and
no one else's. But, as for the repercussions, they evade being traced in any definite manner, to any final and definitive endpoint. To
repeat, not all bystanders are equal. In particular, with regard to the question of complicity raised
above, some bystanders carry greater responsibility than others. If we continue to confine ourselves to
bystanders in the present tense, i.e. to bystanders to contemporary, ongoing events, it is clear that some bystanders will be
closer to the event than others. 'Closer' does not have to denote spatially closer; it may denote
closeness by virtue of professional assignment as well, or by virtue of one's knowledge as an
intellectual. Indeed, the spatial notion of responsibility and its proper scope is hopelessly out of
tune with the moral issues prompted by acts facilitated by context-transcending modern
technology (Jonas, 1979). Today, ethics in world politics must take the form of a deterritorialization of responsibility (Campbell &
Shapiro, 1999). Is degree of responsibility directly proportionate to degree of closeness to the event? The answer will hinge on how
we conceptualize not only agency but responsibility as well. To clarify what is at stake here, some distinctions made by Larry May in
his book Sharing Responsibility may be helpful. A famous quote from Edmund Burke sets the stage for May's
discussion: All that is necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to do nothing.
May goes on to observe that just as a person's inaction makes him or her at least partially responsible for
harms that he or she could have prevented, so collective inaction of a group of persons may make
the members of that group at least partially responsible for harms that the group could have
prevented. (1992: 105) He then defines 'collective omission' as the failure of a group that collectively chooses not to act; by
contrast, 'collective inaction' refers to the failure to act of 'a collection of people that did not choose as a group to remain inactive but
that could have acted as a group' (1992: 107). The latter case of collective inaction is particularly salient with respect to what May
speaks of as 'putative groups', in which 'people are sometimes capable of acting in concert but in which no formal organization
exists and, as a result, there is no decision-making apparatus' (1992: 109). The fundamental premise informing May's
discussion is that 'once one is aware of the things that one could do, and one then does not do
them, then lack of action is something one has chosen' (1992: 119). For my purposes, the central question is
whether the harm (read genocide) that took place in Bosnia could have been prevented, or at least halted, by the contemporary
bystanders to it. Employing the distinction made above between passive bystanders and bystanders by assignment, we shall
explore the extent to which both categories can be held responsible for failing to prevent ongoing and welldocumented cases of genocide.
Failure to act in the face of genocide is moral complicity
Vetlesen 2K (Arne Johan, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo, “Genocide: A Case For the Responsibility of the
Bystander,” Journal of Peace Research, July,
http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/424645?&Search=yes&searchText=vetlesen&searchText=arne&searchText=johan&lis
t=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Darne%2Bjohan%2Bvetlesen%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%
3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=75&returnArticleService=showFullText)
Considering the material I have presented from Bosnia, is there one lesson in particular that needs to be learned here? I believe
there are three important lessons. The first is that the bystander is the one who decides whether the harm
wrought by the aggressor is permitted to stand unrectified or not. The bystander who reacts with
non-reaction, with silence in the face of killing, helps legitimize that very killing. When nothing is
done in the face of what is unfolding, and when what unfolds is, beyond doubt, killing of a
genocidal nature, the message to the agent as well as to the direct victim is that such killing may
continue. Knowing, yet deciding not to act when action would have been possible, entails
complicity - that is to say, on general grounds, it counts as moral complicity (Unger, 1996), though we
need to inquire further to settle the question of strict legal - meaning punishable - complicity. I return to this below.
Genocide causes extinction; preventing it is an ethical verity for all
Harff-Gurr ’81 (Barbara, Professor of Political Science Emerita at the U.S. Naval Academy in Annapolis, Maryland,
“Humanitarian Intervention as a Remedy for Genocide: A Fresh Look at an Old Concept,” University Microfilms, 1981, pg. 40)
One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is genocide, which is neither particular to a
specific race, class, or nation, nor is it rooted in any one, ethnocentric view of the world. Prohibition of genocide and
affirmation of its opposite, the value of life, are an eternal ethical verity, one whose practical
implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections and as such should lift it above
prevailing ideologies or politics. Genocide concerns and potentially effects all people. People make up
a legal system, according to Kelsen. Politics is the expression of conflict among competing groups. Those in power give the political
system its character, i.e. the state. The state, according to Kelsen, is nothing but the combined will of all its people. This abstract
concept of the state may at first glance appear meaningless, because in reality not all people have an equal voice in the formation of
the characteristics of the state. But I am not concerned with the characteristics of the state but rather the
essence of the state – the people. Without a people there would be no state or legal system. With
genocide eventually there will be no people. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all.
True, sometimes only certain groups are targeted, as in Nazi Germany. Sometimes a large part of the total
population is eradicated, as in contemporary Cambodia. Sometimes people are eliminated regardless of national origin – the
Christians in Roman times. Sometimes whole nations vanish – the Amerindian societies after the Spanish conquest. And sometimes
religious groups are persecuted – the Mohammedans by the Crusaders. The culprit changes: sometimes it is a
specific state, or those in power in a state; occasionally it is the winners vs. the vanquished in
international conflicts; and in its crudest form the stronger against the weaker. Since virtually
every social group is a potential victim, genocide is a universal concern.
Impact – Heg
Human rights credibility key to heg
Sen 5 (Sankar, Former Director, Indian National Police Academy, The Statesman, 4-5, Lexis)
There are other sources of strength. The US today is the third most populous country. Unlike other developed countries it has a birth rate which is near
the replacement rate. It has a stable political system and in the realm of knowledge and ideas, it has, as Joseph Nye of Harvard University calls it, "a
clear lead over others". American universities dominate in the field of higher education and American culture, both high-brow or low-brow, music, food,
work styles and manners. The values of democracy, personal freedom, upward mobility and openness that find expression in American education and
culture contribute to American power. It has been aptly said that American soft power looms larger than its economy and military assets and radiates
with an intensity last seen in the days of the Roman empire. Globalisation wears a "made in USA" model. There are some scholars and thinkers who
feel that this American predominance will be ephemeral and this unipolar moment will be brief. In international relations, if one nation becomes too
strong, others will join hands to balance its power. There is also an opposite school holding the view that the present American pre-eminence will last
well into the 21st century, only if the US is able to display strategic restraint and uses its power wisely. Predicting the rise and fall of nations is a
hazardous guess. When Britain lost its American colonies in the 18th century, Horace Walpole visualised Britain's reduction to a little island as
insignificant as Denmark or Sardinia. He failed to foresee the coming industrial revolution that would give Britain another century with greater power.
Similarly, there were others who after the Vietnam war prophesied that American power will gradually contract and its hegemony will not last. But they
did not foresee the third industrial revolution, which would give US new power and strength and a "second century". Today the US has assumed
leadership of the global information revolution. Hegemonists and globalists Now the question is how America as a global superpower is going to use its
vast resources. Geopolitical considerations that guided American policy for more than 100 years are no longer in existence. There are analysts who
feel that soon America, which has over-extended itself, will retreat from further engagements and withdraw military forces from Europe and Asia. This
viewpoint is erroneous because of the profound changes that have taken place in global politics. In this age of globalisation American foreign policy no
longer revolves around geography. Today al Qaeda offers great threats to American security whether they operate from Afghanistan, Philippines or
Western Europe. So in
the coming years America has to remain engaged abroad, but the question is
regarding the manner and way of expanding an international order that suits American interests.
On this there are two schools of thought among the American foreign policy-makers. There are hegemonists who are of the view that American power
and influence is threatened by a combination of terrorism, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction as well as ambitions of other powers. They feel
that to safeguard American safety as well as that of its allies there should be confident exercise of American power with few constraints on its freedom
of action. Hegemonists see American primacy as the key to achieving its foreign policy goals. The other viewpoint is represented by globalists who feel
that, instead of dictating, America should work in cooperation with other countries and international institutions. Unilateral American action will be
counter-productive. This is because economic globalisation has been accompanied in recent days by military globalisation. Previously, distance
neutralised military advantages and provided a buffer. Modern technology has now changed the situation. With widespread diffusion of technology,
many states have acquired the capability of producing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Not only states but terrorist
organisations are likely to be in possession of sophisticated and lethal weapons, which they can use with deadly effect against the most powerful
states. To deal with catastrophic terrorism there is need for both the shield and the sword. The shield of preventive measures has to be strengthened,
but defence measures at home alone will not help. Effective counter terrorism measures by Washington will be successful only if it obtains the support
of other countries. The Bush Administration's National Security Strategy correctly points out that America today is threatened less by "conquering
states than by the failed and failing ones". It is these states which offer opportunities to terrorists to exploit grievances and places to operate. The
rebuilding of these states will require joint working with America's major allies. American military success in Afghanistan and precision bombing
destroyed only a fraction of al Qaeda's cells. It retains cells in 60 other countries. Mere bombing cannot wipe them out from different parts of the world.
The best response to transnational terrorism networks is the network of cooperating government agencies. Spreading disenchantment American
hegemonic power is of course generating animosity. The imperial power always looks like a bully. The claim of a superpower to act in the interest of
others is always taken with a grain of salt. It always creates fears and anxieties among other powers. The First World War had its genesis in Germany's
rise to power and the fear it caused in Great Britain. Similarly in this century China's growth will create fear in the US and may generate conflict. Indeed
anti-American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the
aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, anti-Americanism is widely thought to have reached new
heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step
aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase
manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other
countries that their interests will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of
power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment . But
cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete progress. There is also another disquieting development. It seems
American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of
the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon . Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's
doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of many and turning
them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create disenchantment and
may gradually affect American pre-eminence.
Global nuclear war
Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Losing The Moment? Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, p. 84)
Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return
to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable
not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages.
First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule
of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear
proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help
preclude the rise of another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid
another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear
exchange . U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a
multipolar balance of power system.
Impact – Nuke War
U.S. credibility is key to human rights protection --- impact is global WMD conflict
Burke-White 4 (William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant to the Dean – Woodrow
Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. – Cambridge, “Human Rights and National
Security: The Strategic Correlation”, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis)
This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the promotion of human rights
should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between
the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the
chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war may
directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action
overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that
systematically abuse their own citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in
aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease
the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly
enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to
be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression . A central element
of U.S. foreign policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation
discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the
promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important
policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the
greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling
benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current
government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights
protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass
destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.
Impact – Russia Democracy
Human rights cred is key to Russian democracy
Mendelson 9 (Sarah, Senior Fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program – Center for Strategic and International Studies,
“U.S.-Russia Relations and the Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit”, 6-19, http://www.tcf.org/publicat ions/internationalaffairs/USRussianRelationsandtheDemocracyandRuleofLawDeficit.pdf)
In fact, coping
with authoritarian trends in Russia (and elsewhere) will involve changes in U.S. policies
that have, on the surface, nothing to do with Russia . Bush administration counterterrorism policies that
authorized torture, indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, and the rendering of detainees to secret prisons and Guantánamo have had
numerous negative unintended consequences for U.S. national security, including serving as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda and insurgents in Iraq.4
Less often recognized, these policies also have
undercut whatever leverage the United States had, as well as limited the
push back on authoritarian policies adopted by, among others, the Putin
administration. At its worst, American departures from the rule of law may have enabled abuse inside Russia.
These departures certainly left human rights defenders isolated.5 Repairing the damage to U.S. soft power and reversing
the departure from human rights norms that characterized the Bush administration’s counterterrorism policies will provide
the Obama administration strategic and moral authority and improve the ability of the United States to work
with allies. It also can have positive consequences for Obama’s Russia policy. The changes that need to be made in U.S.
effectiveness of American decision-makers, to
counterterrorism policies, however politically sensitive, are somewhat more straightforward than the adjustments that must be made to respond to the complex issues
concerning Russia. The Obama administration must determine how best to engage Russian leaders and the population on issues of importance to the United States, given
Russia’s poor governance structures, the stark drop in oil prices, Russia’s continued aspirations for great power status, and the rather serious resentment by Russians
concerning American dominance and prior policies. The policy puzzle, therefore, is how to do all this without, at the same time, sacrificing our values and undercutting (yet
again) U.S. soft power. This report assesses the political dynamics that have shaped Russia’s authoritarian drift, briefly addresses a few of the ways in which they matter for
U.S. policy, and suggests several organizing principles to help the Obama administration manage this critical relationship. Possible approaches include working closely with
Europe on a joint approach to Russia, accurately anticipating the unintended consequences of U.S. policy in one realm (such as Kosovo) for Russia policy, and embracing the
rights of states to choose their Sarah E. Mendelson 5 own security alliances. A final important principle relates to U.S. engagement with Russians beyond the Kremlin.
President Obama should speak directly to the Russian people, engaging in a manner that respects their interests and desires, but also reflects the core values of the Obama
administration; that is, “reject[s] as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.”6 The Obama administration also should endorse a platform and a process for a renewed
dialogue between U.S. and Russian civil society. The View from the Kremlin Two interactive dynamics over the past several years have shaped the dominant approach by the
Russian government to the outside world: the United States declined as a world power, and at the same time, the Russian state accumulated massive wealth from high gas and
oil prices. Following what many in the Russian elite view as the “humiliation” of the 1990s, by 2008, Russia was no longer a status quo power. Instead, revisionist in nature,
Russian authorities focused on the restoration of great power status.7 Fueled by petrodollars, the government tackled this project in numerous ways, including military exercises
around the globe, soft power projects such as a twenty-four-hour-a-day English language cable news station, “think tanks” in New York and Paris, and perhaps most important,
gas and oil distribution systems meant to make Russia a central player in energy security for decades to come.8 This restoration project undoubtedly will be slowed by the
current financial crisis and drop in oil revenues, but the building blocks remain in place. As the restoration project evolved, the Putin administration increasingly challenged
aspects of the post–World War II and post–cold war legal, security, and economic architecture, and suggested the need for new arrangements. Many in the Russian elite
seemed to view the changes that have occurred in Europe over the past twenty years, such as the enlargement of the North 6 U.S.-Russian Relations and the Democracy and
Rule of Law Deficit Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), as illegitimate, driven not by the choices of local governments or populations, but by the
will of Washington. Nostalgia for the Soviet era, a related sentiment, is widely shared, and is an important source of former president and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin’s
popularity.9 Some experts even suggest that many in Russia’s governing structures believe that Europe whole and free—that is, post–cold war Europe—is not in the security
interest of Russia. The Carnegie Moscow Center’s Lilya Shevtsova has labeled this view “great power nationalism” and observes that the “Putin-Medvedev-Lavrov doctrine”
derives from the premise that Russia seeks to contain the West—while the West is busy trying not to offend Russia.10 Some other studies suggest that Russian policymakers
have attempted, in fact, to divide the United States from Europe, and generally have preferred bilateral to multilateral engagement.11 At the United Nations, Russia, together
with China, repeatedly has challenged international responses to gross human rights violations in Burma, Darfur, and Zimbabwe, and it has engaged in systematic efforts to
undermine the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s (OSCE) election monitoring efforts and the Council of Europe’s human rights monitoring.12 Meanwhile,
Russian leaders seem to believe the current European security arrangements are soft commitments, ripe for renegotiation and restructuring. President Dmitri Medvedev has, in
fact, called for a new “collective security arrangement,” at the same time reintroducing the concept of spheres of influence.13 All of these actions taken together, along with the
decline in U.S. soft power, have looked at times as if some in the Russian government were trying to reset the table on human rights and international law, exporting its
democracy and rule of law deficit abroad. How best can the United States, together with Europe, respond to this situation? Two additional dynamics are relevant: Russian
internal weaknesses, both political and economic, but also the degree to which the Russian authorities’ assessment of the condition of the international system is correct. For
Sarah E. Mendelson 7 example, in August 2008, Russian government officials fecklessly deployed human rights and international law rhetoric to justify the Russian use of force
in South Ossetia—was that just a murky reflection of the current deeply inconsistent international order?14 Will that calculation be challenged by the Obama administration?
How can it do so effectively? Will we see a new era of more robust international organizations, underpinned by respect for human rights and international law? If not, will we be
in for a period of serious instability in Europe, along Russia’s borders? Russia’s Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit What makes these questions so pressing is
integrating Russia into the Euro-Atlantic
democratic development has largely failed. By 2009, Vladimir Putin’s
policies have systematically closed off nearly all legitimate structures for voicing opposition . Many
the reality that American and European political strategy dating back to the early 1990s of
community and thus encouraging
nongovernmental organizations are under daily pressure from the authorities.15 The parliament is dominated by a government-run party, United Russia, and outcomes of local
and national elections are controlled by the authorities. The government controls national television. The few critically minded journalists that exist routinely are threatened or
are under constant surveillance by the authorities, and twenty murders of journalists since 2000 have gone unsolved.16 One small newspaper known for its criticism of Kremlin
policies has seen four of its journalists killed in recent years. At a minimum, the authorities have presided over an era of impunity, and at worst, some fear government
authorities may have been directly involved in these deaths.17 Meanwhile, the democratic political opposition is extremely marginal and dysfunctional—irrespective of whatever
government pressures are brought to bear on it. Russia has no leading liberal figures that might emerge as national leaders at present. In years past, the fighting among liberal
parties was legendary, and led to multiple fratricidal losses in single-mandate districts, as liberal parties ran against one another—back when there were competitive elections
for parliamentary seats.18 Today, it is unclear when or how the democratic opposition will repair itself. Yet, as political space has shrunk steadily in the past ten years, the
majority of Russians do not appear to mind. In terms of the younger generation, the conventional wisdom that wealth would lead to a demand for democracy has not been borne
out; only about 10 percent of survey respondents could be considered strongly supportive of democracy, while most are ambivalent. In the early 1990s, many in the West
assumed that the older Soviet generation would be replaced eventually by a younger, pro-Western, pro-democratic generation. Experts and policymakers alike assumed this
succession would be a natural course of events, like gravity. A similar conventional wisdom about the younger generation in Russia continues. It holds that iPods, lattes,
skateboards, and other artifacts of Western consumer culture will translate into a desire for independent media, justice, and human rights. In 2005 and 2007, in an environment
of steadily shrinking political space, a study based at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) explored how young Russians viewed Soviet history and Stalin.
Our nationally representative surveys of 16-to-29-year-old Russians suggested that, despite economic prosperity, most young people gravitated enthusiastically to Vladimir
Putin’s ideological platform of revisionist history and nostalgia. The narrative advanced by the government concerning recent history quite simply resonated with this younger
generation. In both surveys, a majority believed that Stalin did more good than bad and that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the
twentieth century. These findings undoubtedly reflected coordinated strategic communications efforts by government authorities, including support of a teacher’s guide rewriting
Soviet history, downplaying the deaths of millions of citizens, and effacing historical memory. These actions facilitated Russia’s authoritarian trend.19 In sum, the Russian
middle class and support for authoritarian governance coexist. The tacit bargain of the past decade, however, in which dissenters were punished but Russians’ pocketbooks
grew, may now be threatened by the international economic crisis. Oil prices plunged from a high of $147 a barrel in July 2008 to about $40 a barrel in December 2008. If the
price of oil stays low, the lubricating effect of oil and gas revenues may well dry up, laying bare Russia’s dysfunctional state institutions and challenging the authorities’ ability to
govern. Economic hardship and poor governance seem, at least anecdotally, to correlate with an increase in public protest and nervousness on the part of the ruling
authorities.20 Perhaps, in the long run, the mix of economic hard times and poor governance will stimulate a greater demand for democracy and the rule of law in Russia, as
citizens grow unhappy with state institutions that do not function and link that dysfunction to poor governance. In the near term, we can expect growth in nationalism and
xenophobia. 21 To be sure, the democracy and rule of law deficit and the growth in nationalism pose problems primarily for Russians. In the twenty-first century, independent
investigative journalism and the legitimate use of courts for prosecution are necessary to fight corruption. Today, Russia is plagued by corruption, and the Russian authorities
dominate both television and court decisions.22 Independent newspapers and Internet sites exist, but journalists who have engaged in investigative journalism have been killed
or live under threat.23 In a state where the rule of man predominates, the population experiences the police as predatory rather than protective. Torture in police stations is said
to be common and police officers who have been rotated through Chechnya are said to be especially abusive.24 In a 2004 CSIS survey of 2,400 Russians ages 16 to 65, 41
percent of respondents feared arbitrary arrest by the police.25 In a 2007 CSIS survey of 2,000 Russians ages 16 to 29, 62 percent of respondents fully or partially distrusted the
police.26 While one cannot make direct comparisons for methodological reasons, it is worth bearing in mind a recent study of attitudes toward police in China, where only 25
percent reported distrust.27 Undoubtedly, the democracy and rule of law deficit varies regionally, but it is particularly worrisome in the southern regions of Russia. The government’s approach to what it perceives as widespread radical Islamic sentiment in the North Caucasus has increased violence rather than contained it. Between May 1 and
August 31, 2008, there were at least 282 incidents, and between September 1 and December 31, 2008 there were at least 333.28 When the situation is at its most dire, the
Russian government appears not to control this part of its territory. Many experts worry that there will be war in the North Caucasus in 2009, or possibly that, south of the border,
a Russian-Georgia war will break out again.29 That prognosis may be overly gloomy, but violence is clearly on the rise and the socioeconomic conditions in the region are dire.
The democracy and rule of law deficit in Russia has a
range of security and human rights implications for the United States and our allies in Europe. For example, the Obama
administration comes to office with a number of arms control goals. These plans may be complicated by the absence of
Russian military reform that, in turn, correlates with abuse inside the army. (They are also complicated by
Why It Matters What does any of this have to do with the Obama administration?
continued government reliance on nonconventional forces: in September 2008, President Medvedev committed to modernizing the nuclear arsenal.30)
Serious, joint counterterrorism efforts with the United States, Europe, and Russia are likely to remain illusive
as long as the police and security services are corrupt and abusive, and the media, a potential source to
expose that corruption, is largely controlled by the government . Even at the nongovernmental, track-two level, it is now difficult to have the
sort of transatlantic Sarah E. Mendelson 11 policy dialogue on terrorism that has been common among other nations and societies since 2001.31 The most dire evidence
suggests that security service personnel or contractors have been deployed abroad, in European cities, to eliminate Kremlin enemies. In the most famous example, British
authorities have sought the extradition from Moscow of former KGB bodyguard and current Duma member Andrew Lugovoi for the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander
Litvinenko in London in November 2006.32 Kremlin proxies, such as Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov, may have agents doing the same on his behalf on the streets of Austria,
also with apparent impunity.33 At a minimum, the Russian authorities seem to have drawn a red line at additional enlargement of Euro-Atlantic organizations. Instead of allowing
states and societies to decide for themselves what alliances and security or economic arrangements they want, Russian officials speak of “zones of interest” and “neutral”
spaces—presumably such as Ukraine. In the worst case scenario, the Kremlin might decide to probe the resolve of existing NATO and EU security commitments. Presumably,
this realization led General James Craddock to request that NATO begin defense planning for the Baltic states.34 Some believe, although the evidence is not clear, that the May
2007 cyber attack on Estonian government agencies, banks, newspapers, and other organizations was a first probe by the Russian government.35 In the August 2008 war in
Georgia, for which all sides deserve some blame, experts saw evidence of additional Russian government cyber attacks and a prime example of blatant disregard for
international law as the Russian government sought to change an internationally recognized border by force.36 Meanwhile, existing Euro-Atlantic organizations are negatively
and directly affected by Russia’s democracy and rule of law deficit. In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has heard far more cases from Russia than any other
country, effectively substituting for Russia’s domestic judiciary. Some European human rights lawyers argue that this situation is severely undermining the court’s efficacy and
ability to handle cases from a broad range of countries. Moreover, the Russian government increasingly has failed to compensate victims or their families, apparently now
risking its expulsion from the Council of Europe.37 According to numerous OSCE officials, the Kremlin has waged a systematic campaign to undercut the organization’s various
monitoring efforts.38 The emergent norm of international election observation has been undermined by the Kremlin’s attempts to legitimize fraudulent elections at home and in
neighboring states, supporting a wave of authoritarian governments in this region.39
Global nuclear war
Goodby 2 (James E., Former Fellow – US Institute of Peace, and Piet Buwalda and Dmitriĭ Trenin, A Strategy for Stable
Peace: Toward a Euroatlantic Security Community, p. 27-29)
A decade after the Cold War was solemnly buried, there is still no stable peace between Russia and the
Western countries. Moreover, from the late 1990s the dynamic of the relationship has taken a negative direction. NATO's
expansion to the east, the Kosovo crisis, and the second Chechen war stand out as milestones of the
gradual slide toward something alternately described as a "cold peace" and a "new cold war." Frustration is steadily
building on both sides. Mutual expectations have been drastically lowered. In the Western world, and in North America in particular,
public expectations for Russia and its affairs have plummeted. "Russia fatigue" is widespread in Europe as well. In Russia itself,
Western, especially U.S., policies are often described as being aimed at keeping Russia weak and fragmented, with a purpose of
subjugating it. It would appear, then, that today is anything but a propitious starting point for an effort to chart the road toward a
security community centered on Europe that would include Russia. But such an effort is necessary and should not be delayed. At
worst, a Russia that is not properly anchored in a common institutional framework with the West can turn into a
loose nuclear cannon. If conflicts arise between Russia and its smaller neighbors, the West will not be able to
sit them out. And a progressive alienation between Russia and the Western world would have a very negative
impact on domestic developments in Russia. Now that the German problem has been solved, the Russian problem
looms as potentially Europe's largest. The United States will not be able to ignore Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal,
and the European Union can hardly envisage a modicum of stability along its eastern periphery
unless it finds a formula to co-opt Russia as Europe's reliable associate. RUSSIAN
DEMOCRATIZATION In the decade since the demise of the Soviet Union and the communist system, Russia has
evolved into a genuinely pluralist society, although it is still a very incomplete democracy. To its credit, Russia has a
constitution that proclaims separation of powers; it has a working parliament, an executive president, and a nominally independent
judiciary. Between 1993 and 2000, three parliamentary and two presidential elections were held; for the first time in Russia's long
history, transfer of power at the very top occurred peacefully and in accordance with a democratic constitution. This is already
becoming a pattern. Power has been decentralized vertically as well as horizontally. Power monopoly is a thing of the past. Russia's
regions have started to form distinct identities. The regional governors, or presidents of republics, within Russia are popularly
elected, as are city mayors and regional legislatures. The national economy has been largely privatized. The media, though not
genuinely independent either of the authorities or of the various vested interests, are free in principle. There is a large degree of
religious freedom, and ideological oppression is nonexistent. Finally, Russians are free to travel abroad. These achievements are
significant, and most of them are irreversible. Yet, Russia's development is handicapped by major hurdles to
speedier societal transformation, as is occurring in Poland or Estonia. One hurdle is poor governance, stemming from the irresponsibility of the elites as much as from sheer incompetence. Toward the end of the Yeltsin era, the state itself appeared privatized, with
parts of it serving the interests of various groups or strongmen. Corruption and crime are pervasive. Accustomed to living in an
authoritarian state, many Russians began to associate democracy with chaos and thuggery. Another major problem is widespread
poverty and the collapse of the social infrastructure, including health care. Too many Russians believe they have gained little or
nothing from the economic and social changes of the past decade. Taken together, these factors work toward the
restoration of some form of authoritarian and paternalistic rule.
Impact – Terrorism
Human Rights Abuse Harm US Anti-terror Impacts
Malinowsky 8(Tom, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, fomer special assistant to President Bill Clinton
and senior director for foreign policy speechwriting at the National Security Council, 7-2008, American Academy of Political and
Social Science, “Restoring Moral Authority: Ending Torture, Secret Detention, and the Prison at Guantanamo Bay”)
If the United States could beat al Qaeda simply by detaining or killing its members, then perhaps some degree of
moral inconsistency and reputational harm might be acceptable. As the administration often asked, why should it
matter that people don't like the United States as long as we're getting the terrorists? But as the Army
Counterinsurgency Manual wisely reminds us, in fighting nontradi- tional terrorist foes, it is never possible to
kill or capture every fighter (United States Army and United States Marine Corps 2006, para. 1-128 to 1-129). Victory
depends on cutting off the enemy's "recuperative power" - its ability to gain new adherents to its
cause - by diminishing its legitimacy while increasing your own. The key to beating al Qaeda, then,
lies in convincing ordinary people in the Muslim world that America's values and vision for the
future are more attractive than those of its enemies. The United States cannot do that if it excuses
itself from the values it preaches to others. The greatest damage may have been done during the early days of the
insur- gency in Iraq, when abuse of detainees at forward operating bases and facilities like Abu Ghraib was routine. Inevitably, many
of the men U.S. forces rounded up in sweeps of dangerous Iraqi neighborhoods were not insurgents and were ulti- mately sent
home. If these men experienced abuse, they likely emerged much more eager to fight Americans. As one Army sergeant put it in an
interview with Human Rights Watch, "Half of these guys got released because they didn't do nothing. We sent them back to
Fallujah. But if he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of the way we treated him" (Human Rights Watch 2005, 14).
Impact – War
State discrimination causes conflict
Thoms and Ron 7 (Oskar N.T. Thoms earned an M.A. in Sociology at McGill University in Montreal and currently works
as an independent research consultant. James Ron is Associate Professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of
International Affairs in Ottawa. He publishes on issues of human rights, political violence, and transnational activism. “Do Human
Rights Violations Cause Internal Conflict?” Human Rights Quarterly by The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007,
http://www.princeton.edu/~othoms/files/HRQ2007.pdf)
State-sanctioned discrimination, which all human rights instruments regard as a violation, does appear to be a conflict risk factor.
This claim must remain tentative, however, since currently there is a lack of adequate and comparable cross-national measures of
discrimination. The literature suggests that when state discrimination is either absent or widely ignored, inequalities
are less likely to trigger acute grievances or violence. In the United States, for example, social inequalities are
high, yet this rarely translates into sustained popular anger at the political system or the privileges of others. Empirical realities
aside, many disadvantaged groups in America regard the US as a reasonably accessible polity, dampening grievances and
reducing the potential for political violence. When this does not hold true—for example, during the civil rights era in the
American South—discrimination helps spark political mobilization and, potentially, civil violence.
Discrimination is often relevant to conflict because it transforms inequalities into antagonistic
group identities. When individuals face similar circumstances and suffer from similar patterns of discrimination, powerful
collective grievances can emerge, facilitating the formation of antagonistic groups. This, in turn, may create the potential
for collective action and even violence.70 When discrimination is organized along ethnic lines, groups are
more receptive to ethnic or nationalist appeals, including those made by unscrupulous political
leaders.71 Discrimination is particularly relevant to ethnic conflicts, creating or hardening ethnic identities where few existed
before, or transforming fluid cleavages into durable, antagonistic identities. Some scholars view ethnic conflict as a
creation of modern state discrimination, since ethnic groups struggle to capture key state resources such as control
over legislation, territory, national symbols, physical security, social security, political representation, and taxation.72 State
discrimination on any one of these may create grievances and greater potential for violence. Discrimination works in a number of
ways. More often than not, the state allocates benefits unequally, including access to jobs, education, contracts, licenses, or
subsidies. Preferential access can be given either to groups or individuals through patron-client relations.73 Hybrid arrangements
are also possible, in which individual clients are given special access and in return, mobilize entire groups for their patron.
Discrimination may also work through the unequal distribution of costs, including disproportionately high taxes compared to
government expenditures in a given region or community. In some cases, the truth matters less than popular perception. If one
group has disproportionate control over the state, others may feel discriminated against because
they lack a sense of participation and trust.74 Regardless of the precise mechanism, the key point is that
discrimination can create popular grievances. These grievances may allow group elites to claim that political
mobilization and even violence are necessary remedies. It is important to note, however, that discrimination is
not always an injustice, since it may serve as a counterweight to inequalities created in years past. In many parts of the post-colonial
world, for example, control over the state and its agencies is a way of boosting the life chances of groups previously excluded from
economic opportunities. Allocation of public resources along group lines is also not always a risk factor, and in some cases, may
even promote stability. During Communist rule in the former Yugoslavia, for example, many positions in federal, provincial, and local
bureaucracies were allocated by ethnic or national “keys” in an effort to guarantee group representation and parity. Some Canadian
government agencies and political parties run along similar lines, as in the unofficial leadership rotation agreement within the federal
Liberal party to preserve Anglophone-Francophone parity.75 Yet there is a risk here too; if the resources underwriting group-based
agreements run dry, disappointed elites may “enter the political arena and orchestrate the dissatisfaction of their . . . following,”76 as
occurred in the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and parts of the former Soviet Union. In these and other cases, long-standing and
peaceful agreements broke down, and ethnic and confessional identities became the building blocks of war. From a human
rights perspective, discrimination is problematic since it violates fundamental tenets of fairness
and equal access to public goods. Yet preferential treatment may also serve a positive purpose,77 creating a thorny
ethical and legal dilemma.78 Should human rights advocates seek to abolish all group benefits, even when they redress historical
injustices or provide peaceful alternatives to conflict? Surely not; there must be situations in which group benefits of a sort are
worthwhile, if only for a time. Conservatives in the US now claim that affirmative action for visible minorities violates individual
rights,79 but many social justice and human rights advocates would object. In Quebec, some have cited individual rights to protest
laws promoting French in public life and business, while others respond that collective Francophone rights should have priority in
some circumstances.80 Discrimination is a conflict risk factor, but blanket condemnations of all collective
arrangements should be avoided. Instead, a nuanced, contextual approach encourages us to focus on addressing the most toxic
forms of discrimination in conflict-prone regions and countries.
Violation of personal and security rights causes escalation
Thoms and Ron 7 (Oskar N.T. Thoms earned an M.A. in Sociology at McGill University in Montreal and currently works
as an independent research consultant. James Ron is Associate Professor at Carleton University’s Norman Paterson School of
International Affairs in Ottawa. He publishes on issues of human rights, political violence, and transnational activism. “Do Human
Rights Violations Cause Internal Conflict?” Human Rights Quarterly by The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007,
http://www.princeton.edu/~othoms/files/HRQ2007.pdf)
While socioeconomic conditions rarely trigger violent conflict on their own, violations of personal integrity or security
rights—including indiscriminate killings, systematic torture, disappearances, or wide-scale imprisonment—do
provide a clear link to escalation.81 An authoritative statement on this count comes from sociologist Jeff Goodwin, whose
study of 20th century revolutions argues that politics matter more than economics: [R]evolutionary movements were more
consistently a response to severely constricted or even contracting political opportunities, including chronic and even increasing
state repression. Ordinary people joined or supported revolutionary movements when no other means of political expression were
available to them, or when they or their families and friends were the targets of violent repression that was perpetrated or tolerated
by relatively weak states.82 State repression is a major risk factor because it can transform latent
grievances into active antagonisms, providing the persecuted with strong motivations for
violence. Although individuals and groups may grudgingly tolerate economic inequality and discrimination for years, they are
more likely to respond with violence when physically threatened or attacked. This response is especially likely when repression is
indiscriminate, since quiescence offers little protection. Importantly, there is strong evidence that government
repression is habit-forming and that past levels of repression have a powerful effect on current
behavior. Like civil war, government repression seems to have a life of its own, re-emerging time and again.83 Governments are
not the only ones capable of violating personal integrity rights. Non-state groups may also make extreme demands or use violence,
thereby inviting government repression and conflict escalation.84 As governments go after real and imagined
opponents, fear and anger spread, facilitating further mobilization. 85 Importantly, one study presents
statistical evidence in support of the argument that states will switch from accommodation to repression, or vice versa, when either
tactic meets with further rebellion or dissent. Thus, the choices dissidents make can profoundly shape government behavior.86
When both sides resort to violence, the proverbial vicious cycle often ensues. To illustrate the
repression-conflict nexus, this article makes use of the Political Terror Scale (PTS), a five-point index that ranks governments’ resort
to state terror.87 Widely used by social scientists,88 PTS scores measure a state’s propensity to violate its citizens’ personal
integrity rights, drawing on narrative reports by either Amnesty International or the US State Department.89 These scores range
from one, where state terror is “rare,” to five, where state terror is “systematic.” Graph 4 divides most of the world’s countries into
five groups according to their average PTS scores (based on Amnesty International reports) for the period of 1990 to 2003 and
indicates the number of countries in each group that experienced at least one year of internal conflict or war during that period.90
The graph suggests that the association between state repression and internal conflict is strong. Of the thirty-six regimes
engaged in “systematic” or “extensive” state terror, thirty-one were also embroiled in internal
conflict. The “widespread” state terror category was almost evenly split, but sixty-nine of the seventy-eight least repressive
countries were conflict free. Importantly, none of the countries that rarely resort to repression experienced conflict. This apparent
association does not imply causation, however, because in many cases, escalating conflict may promote state reliance on
repression, rather than the reverse. More research on this relationship is needed, but the link is there. Thus, it seems
reasonable to suggest that concerned groups seek to curb governments’ appetite for repression. Oddly enough, however, there is
also a problem with this recommendation, since some studies suggest that intermediate levels of state repression increase the risk
of internal conflict. Statistically, semi-repressive regimes have a higher risk of political violence and internal conflict, perhaps
because their tactics are too harsh to permit debate, but too weak to definitively quash insurgency.91 Recent research also
suggests that, depending on circumstances, repression may trigger escalation by enraging the opposition, but
that a lack of repression may also lead to escalation by demonstrating government weakness.92 Therefore, it is sobering to think
that international human rights advocates may in some cases promote the worst of all possible outcomes, providing just enough
protection for dissidents to challenge the state, but not enough to prevent repression and escalation.
Human rights violations cause conflicts – increase risk and escalation
Rost 11 (Nicolas Rost, Coordination Officer in the Office of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process
(UNSCO) and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for Somalia (OCHA). “Human Rights Violations, Weak States,
and Civil War” Springer, 1 March 2011, http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12142-011-0196-9.pdf)
In the past two decades, quantitative human rights research has proliferated considerably. Typically, the vast amount of these
studies has tried to explain under what conditions human rights violations occur. Six factors have consistently been found to
influence the level of violations of personal integrity rights (Poe and Tate 1994; Poe et al. 1999): past repression (Davenport 1995;
Richards et al. 2001), democracy (Henderson 1991; Fein 1995; Rummel 1994, 1995; Davenport 1995, 2004; Zanger 2000; Regan
and Henderson 2002; Harff 2003; Davenport and Armstrong 2004; Valentino et al. 2004; Easterly et al. 2006; Eck and Hultman
2007; Colaresi and Carey 2008), the level of economic development (Mitchell and McCormick 1988; Carey 2004; Besançon 2005),
population size (Henderson 1993; Carey 2004), international war, and civil war (Krain 1997; Zanger 2000; Harff 2003; Wayman and
Tago 2009). In the reverse, repression also seems to be linked with an increased risk of violent conflict in
following years. Numerous studies in the civil war literature have found that state suppression of political rights and
civil liberties, instead of deterring rebellions, often helps to provoke uprisings (Gurr 1970; Tilly 1978;
Muller 1985; Muller and Seligson 1987; Muller and Weede 1990; Boswell and Dixon 1990; Schock 1996). Studies focusing on ethnic
rebellion and discrimination have confirmed this relationship (Gurr and Moore 1997; Goldstone et al. 2000:35). The same may
be true for violations of personal integrity rights. Indiscriminate repression sometimes backfires and
leads to an escalation of the conflict. This is not always the case; otherwise, governments would not use repression. In
some cases, governments use repression successfully, at least in the short run (from their point of view). Lichbach (1987) argues
that opposition movements respond to government oppression by switching to alternative
strategies. Gupta et al. (1993) find that the effects of government sanctions vary with the regime type of the country (see also
Moore 1998). Clearly, the process leading to war is complex. Opposition groups, the government, and the general population
interact over an extended period of time before it comes to a civil war. For example, in the 1980s, Somali President Siad Barre
responded to the emergence of an armed independence movement in Somaliland by employing his secret services, which
“arbitrarily detained, tortured, or murdered hundreds of Issaq civilians […] Government forces poisoned wells and slaughtered the
livestock rural Issaq depended on for their livelihoods” (Human Rights Watch 2009). While in Somalia, full-blown civil war occurred,
this does not always have to be the case. In the Central African Republic, the army “was responsible for numerous rights violations
in the north of the country, where hundreds of civilians were summarily executed and many thousands of homes were burned,
typically in the context of counter-insurgency operations against anti-government groups” (Human Rights Watch 2008). Still, since
2002, ongoing conflict has not reached the level of a civil war. A few studies try to describe the strategic interaction between the
government and an opposition group that takes place before a civil war starts. Mason and Krane (1989) develop a rational choice
model that lays out how repression can create a conflict spiral and drive civilians into joining the rebels.
According to their argument, as a government reverts to indiscriminate repression, civilians are no longer
safe by staying neutral and become more likely to join a rebel group in search for protection from
government persecution. There is simply No Other Way Out for civilians (Goodwin 2001). Governments use indiscriminate
repression when they do not have the “institutional machinery, redistributable resources, and political inclination” to accommodate
opposition demands (Mason and Krane 1989:184). Pierskalla (2010) develops a strategic game to illustrate how under certain
conditions—incomplete information or a third-party threat, such as from the military —government repression can lead to an
escalation from conflict to full-blown civil war. Semi-democratic regimes, which are neither fully authoritarian nor
democratic but mix elements of both, should also be at a higher risk of experiencing civil war onset following government repression,
according to his model. Below, I discuss that it is not only the interaction between repression and politically unstable and weak
regimes that increases the risk of civil war onset, but the interaction between repression and many aspects of state weakness.
Violence, of course, is not only used by the government during the escalating process leading to civil war. Weinstein (2005, 2007)
finds that rebel groups that rely on resource rents, and therefore less on the support of the population, are more likely to use
indiscriminate violence against civilians. Bueno de Mesquita (2010) shows in a game-theoretical model that terrorist groups may
have an interest in using violence to recruit new members. Kalyvas (2006) and Wood (2010) examine the use of violence by both
government and rebel groups during, rather than before, civil war. In a detailed study of the Greek civil war, Kalyvas (2006), similar
to Mason and Krane (1989), finds that, in situations of indiscriminate repression, particularly if used by both sides, it may be
beneficial for civilians to join either side, rather than to remain neutral, as people who stay neutral are at a higher risk of
experiencing indiscriminate repression. Members of armed groups have privileged access to information, are trained on how to react
when arrested or interrogated, receive protection and support from their organizations, and will often be more careful in avoiding
contact with members of the opponent group. Wood (2010) examines how both rebels and the government use repression against
civilians strategically. Weak rebel groups that cannot provide selective incentives to their members are more likely to use violence to
recruit civilians into their ranks. As long as rebels are strong enough to provide some protection to civilians, indiscriminate
government violence helps them overcome the collective action problem and reduces their reliance on violence and selective
incentives. Building on this body of literature, I propose that there are two ways in which indiscriminate
repression is linked to the risk of civil war onset: first, human rights violations cause an increase in
the risk of civil war onset; second, repression is part of the escalating process that may lead to
civil war, and thereby constitutes an early warning sign of an increased risk of war.
Human rights violations cause a conflicts-right loss cycle – spirals out of control
Maiese 3 (Michelle Maiese, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Emmanuel College, Ph.D. in Philosophy, M.A., University of
Colorado; B.A., Northwestern University. “Human Rights Violations” University of Colorado, July 2003,
http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/human-rights-violations)
Abuse of human
rights often leads to conflict, and conflict typically results in human rights violations. It is not
Many have noted the strong interdependence between human rights violations and intractable conflict.
surprising, then, that human rights abuses are often at the center of wars and that protection of human rights is central to conflict
resolution.[20] Violations of political and economic rights are the root causes of many crises. When
rights to adequate food, housing, employment, and cultural life are denied, and large groups of people are excluded from the
society's decision-making processes, there is likely to be great social unrest. Such conditions often give rise to justice
conflicts, in which parties demand that their basic needs be met. Indeed, many conflicts are sparked or spread by violations of
human rights. For example, massacres or torture may inflame hatred and strengthen an adversary's
determination to continue fighting. Violations may also lead to further violence from the other side and can
contribute to a conflict's spiraling out of control. On the flip side, armed conflict often leads to the
breakdown of infrastructure and civic institutions, which in turn undermines a broad range of rights. When hospitals and
schools are closed, rights to adequate health and education are threatened. The collapse of economic infrastructure often results in
pollution, food shortages, and overall poverty.[21] These various forms of economic breakdown and
oppression violate rights to self-determination and often contribute to further human tragedy in the
form of sickness, starvation, and lack of basic shelter. The breakdown of government institutions
results in denials of civil rights, including the rights to privacy, fair trial, and freedom of movement. In many cases, the
government is increasingly militarized, and police and judicial systems are corrupted. Abductions, arbitrary arrests, detentions
without trial, political executions, assassinations, and torture often follow. In cases where extreme violations of
human rights have occurred, reconciliation and peacebuilding become much more difficult.
Unresolved human rights issues can serve as obstacles to peace negotiations.[22] This is because it is
difficult for parties to move toward conflict transformation and forgiveness when memories of severe violence and atrocity are still
primary in their minds.
Torture/K Advantage
Narrative
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html?_r=2&
ONE man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago.
I’ve been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity.
I’ve been detained at Guantánamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received
a trial.
I could have been home years ago — no one seriously thinks I am a threat — but still I am here. Years ago the military said I was a
“guard” for Osama bin Laden, but this was nonsense, like something out of the American movies I used to watch. They don’t even
seem to believe it anymore. But they don’t seem to care how long I sit here, either.
When I was at home in Yemen, in 2000, a childhood friend told me that in Afghanistan I could do better than the $50 a month I
earned in a factory, and support my family. I’d never really traveled, and knew nothing about Afghanistan, but I gave it a try.
I was wrong to trust him. There was no work. I wanted to leave, but had no money to fly home. After the American invasion in 2001,
I fled to Pakistan like everyone else. The Pakistanis arrested me when I asked to see someone from the Yemeni Embassy. I was
then sent to Kandahar, and put on the first plane to Gitmo.
Last month, on March 15, I was sick in the prison hospital and refused to be fed. A team from the E.R.F. (Extreme Reaction Force),
a squad of eight military police officers in riot gear, burst in. They tied my hands and feet to the bed. They forcibly inserted an IV into
my hand. I spent 26 hours in this state, tied to the bed. During this time I was not permitted to go to the toilet. They inserted a
catheter, which was painful, degrading and unnecessary. I was not even permitted to pray.
I will never forget the first time they passed the feeding tube up my nose. I can’t describe how painful it is to be force-fed this way.
As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldn’t. There was agony in my chest, throat and
stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone.
I am still being force-fed. Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know
when they will come. Sometimes they come during the night, as late as 11 p.m., when I’m sleeping.
There are so many of us on hunger strike now that there aren’t enough qualified medical staff members to carry out the forcefeedings; nothing is happening at regular intervals. They are feeding people around the clock just to keep up.
During one force-feeding the nurse pushed the tube about 18 inches into my stomach, hurting me more than usual, because she
was doing things so hastily. I called the interpreter to ask the doctor if the procedure was being done correctly or not.
It was so painful that I begged them to stop feeding me. The nurse refused to stop feeding me. As they were finishing, some of the
“food” spilled on my clothes. I asked them to change my clothes, but the guard refused to allow me to hold on to this last shred of
my dignity.
When they come to force me into the chair, if I refuse to be tied up, they call the E.R.F. team. So I have a choice. Either I can
exercise my right to protest my detention, and be beaten up, or I can submit to painful force-feeding.
The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a
human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one.
I do not want to die here, but until President Obama and Yemen’s president do something, that is what I risk every day.
Where is my government? I will submit to any “security measures” they want in order to go home, even though they are totally
unnecessary.
I will agree to whatever it takes in order to be free. I am now 35. All I want is to see my family again and to start a family of my own.
The situation is desperate now. All of the detainees here are suffering deeply. At least 40 people here are on a hunger strike. People
are fainting with exhaustion every day. I have vomited blood.
And there is no end in sight to our imprisonment. Denying ourselves food and risking death every day is the choice we have made.
I just hope that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guantánamo before it is too late.
Torture Now
The US chose Guantanamo to push limits – if it doesn’t stop now they’ll just push
it farther
CCR 6 (Center for Constitutional Rights. “REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, AND DEGRADING TREATMENT
OF PRISONERS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA.” Center for Constitutional Rights July 2006. Web.)
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf
The extreme interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib were designed and
implemented first at Guantánamo and then exported to Iraq.40 The government deliberately chose
Guantánamo as its prison site because it believed foreign citizens detained there stood beyond
the reach of U.S. law, including U.S. international obligations under the Geneva Conventions and other
international humanitarian and human rights law. The U.S. government calculated that, at Guantánamo, a prisoner would
have no remedy to contest his incarceration in U.S. courts.41 Legal memoranda from 2002 reveal that the
White House and the DoD wanted to know how far they could “legally” go in interrogating alleged
terrorists.42 Guantánamo was the perfect location to test these limits .
These practices will continue unless action is taken – US refuses to take blame
CCR 6 (Center for Constitutional Rights. “REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, AND DEGRADING TREATMENT
OF PRISONERS AT GUANTÁNAMO BAY, CUBA.” Center for Constitutional Rights July 2006. Web.)
http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf
The U.S. government has steadfastly declared that the prisoners in Guantánamo are treated
humanely, that any isolated incidents of abuse occurred long ago, and the individual soldiers involved reprimanded. The
government points to the fact that none of the investigations undertaken so far “found that any
governmental policy directed, encouraged or condoned these abuses .”231The government’s selfserving reliance on the conclusions of its own investigations highlights the urgent need for an
independent investigation of prisoner treatment and conditions of confinement. The U.S. government
has failed to provide the prisoners with any means to address and remedy their allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment. Neither the military proceedings in Guantánamo nor the federal courts in the
United States have held the U.S. government accountable for the conduct in Guantánamo or
prohibited these practices. As the prisoners enter their fifth year of detention, not a single federal habeas hearing has been
held to challenge a prisoner’s “enemy combatant” status, and mistreatment in Guantánamo and continued arbitrary confinement.
The US is more focused on individual interests than ending torture – full removal
is key
Wright-Smith no date (Kali Wright-Smith, political science degree from Purdue University. “Talking About Torture: US
Discourse and the Case of Guantanamo Bay.” Academia no date. Web.)
http://www.academia.edu/243358/Talking_About_Torture_U.S._Discourse_and_the_Case_of_Guantanamo_Bay EW
Despite ratification of the CAT, it is clear from reports of abuse that the U.S did not base all of its actions on shared
values. From the inception of Guantanamo Bay, multiple allegations of torture arose from past detainees
and human rights organizations. A 2002 Washington Post article claimed that the U.S. used "stress and duress techniques"
including prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, and hours of forced standing. 18 In 2008, after years of reports of
torture, the Bush Administration admitted to the repeated use of interrogation tactics like
waterboarding. 19 It also gained information from illegal interrogations, failed to prosecute perpetrators of ill-treatment and
torture, and purposively engaged in rendition to countries where torture is practiced. 20 Finally, consistent refusal to
permit UN monitoring bodies full access to Guantanamo indicates that the U.S. was primarily
focused on narrow domestic interests.
Spillover Link
Torture is more likely to be accepted if carried out by the government, leads to
spillover
Crandall et al 8 (Christian S. Crandall, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Scott Eidelman, University of Maine, Orono. Linda
J. Skitka and G Scott Morgan, University of Illinois, Chicago. “Status quo framing increases support for torture.” Psychology Press
2008. Web.) http://www.uic.edu/labs/skitka/public_html/Torture.pdf
We test the power of status quo bias in the context of a significant and current debate, the use of torture in the gathering of
information from detainees. Interrogation practices at Abu Ghraib were made public by Seymour Hersh (2004),
which involved humiliation, sleep deprivation, water-boarding (simulated drowning), hanging detainees by ropes in painful positions,
threats by dogs, and sexual humiliation. A significant debate evolved in the USA and around the world as to
whether these practices were unique to Abu Ghraib, or if the USA and its agents had used these
techniques before (e.g., Phoenix program in Vietnam, in Central and South American conflicts from the 1950s to the 1980s)
or since (e.g., at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp). Americans do not favor torture as a general tactic, and the
public response to the report of conditions at Abu Ghraib was primarily of shock and disgust (Friedman, 2004;
McKelvey, 2007). But once governmental elites have chosen a particular policy, people are often
interested in making this choice seem acceptable, reasonable, or inevitable (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). We
tested whether characterizing the practice of torture of prisoners of war or criminal suspects would enhance the acceptability of the
practice. If long-standing practices are simply understood to be good, then description of torture as
part of the status quo should make it seem more acceptable. We tested this hypothesis using a representative
sample of U.S. adults.
Guantanamo Bay makes terrorism more likely
Postel 13 (Thérèse Postel is a policy associate in international affairs at The Century Foundation. “How Guantanamo Bay's
Existence Helps Al-Qaeda Recruit More Terrorists.” The Atlantic 12 April 2013. Web.)
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/how-guantanamo-bays-existence-helps-al-qaeda-recruit-moreterrorists/274956/ EW
The constant refrain about Guantanamo Bay may be inspiring jihadist action . Anwar al-Awlaki
issued a lecture discussing the plight of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay before his death by drone strike in 2011.
Awlaki's lectures still play an important role in recruiting impressionable individuals to jihad . As we
know, Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hassan was impressed by Awlaki's message and was encouraged (although not directed) to carry
out an attack on the states by the cleric himself. The ramifications of the indefinite nature of Guantanamo have not been
lost on American military and policy-makers, either. Air Force Officer Matthew Alexander, who was in
charge of an interrogation team in Iraq, states that many of his subjects mentioned Guantanamo in their
discussions and that it remains a strong recruitment tool . Not only does it aid recruitment, but in Alexander's
words, "the longer it stays open the more cost it will have in U.S. lives. " John Brennan, now director of the
Central Intelligence Agency, echoed Alexander's words just less than two years ago: "The prison at Guantánamo Bay
undermines our national security, and our nation will be more secure the day when that prison is
finally and responsibly closed."
Allowing torture in a single instance justifies spill-over into other instances
Hart no date (Walter Hart, sociology student at Texas A&M. “The Normalization and Justification of the Bush Torture
Policies.” Academia no date. Web.)
http://www.academia.edu/445592/From_Geneva_to_Abu_Ghraib_The_Normalization_and_Justification_of_the_Bush_Torture_Polic
ies EW
In an attempt to answer the third question, I will show how the Bush administration successfully scapegoated the
individual soldiers and argued the morality/utility and legality of torture in order to create the
appearance of justice, evade responsibility, and to continue to justify its policy decisions in the
war on terror. Moving forward, I will attempt to connect the relationship between the rhetoric of the Bush administration, public
opinion concerning torture, and the news media’s coverage of Abu Ghraib scandal. The relationship between rhetoric, public
opinion, and the media will be used to understand why the Bush administration was able to implement its torture 7 policies and
minimize the legal effects in the aftermath. The attorneys of the court-martialed soldiers argued that the
defendants should not be held responsible for the abuse of detainees because their actions
stemmed from policies implemented by the Bush administration. Those policies migrated from
Guantanamo and Afghanistan to Abu Ghraib where they contributed to a dysfunctional
environment that normalized abuse and “provided the opportunity for such abuse to occur and to
continue undiscovered by higher authority for a long period of time.” (Fay 2004, 71) The defense’s expert witness
Stjepan G. Mestrovic described the dynamics of the trial in his 2007 book, The Trials of Abu Ghraib: An Expert Witness Account of
Shame and Honor: The defense teams tried, and failed, to get high-ranking officers, and even the
secretary of defense to testify. For the most part, the defense teams were putting the Army on trial… the government
seemed guilty, in part for the unlawful policies and chaos that were established at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, yet the government
was going through the rituals of justice and assigning blame onto its lowest-ranking soldiers. (Mestrovic 2007, 18)
War on Terror Bad
Framing extremists as “terrorists” or “jihadists” spurs more violent attacks and
anti-American feelings
Allegra Stratton, Political editor on BBC Two's Newsnight programme, political correspondent at The Guardian newspaper,
4/25/13, “Terror talk: No more Islamist jihads,” http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/25/terror.language
With less than a year left in office, the Bush administration is rewriting its "war on terror" lexicon. ¶ Documents
obtained by
the Associated Press news agency show officials in federal agencies have been asked not to use
the terms jihadists and mujahideen, describe al-Qaida as a movement, or refer to Islamo-fascism.¶
Staff of the state department, homeland security department and national counterterrorism centre, as well as diplomats and other
officials, have been told that various words in common use may actually boost support for extremists
among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or causing
offence to moderates.¶ The new guidance explains that while Americans may understand jihad to mean holy war, it is in fact
a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good. Similarly, mujahideen, which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in
its broader context.¶ US officials may be "unintentionally portraying terrorists, who lack moral and
religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims". ¶ A
homeland security report, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims, said:
"Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it
glamorises terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages
relations with Muslims around the world."¶ Language is critical in fighting terror, says another document,
an internal "official use only" memorandum circulating through Washington titled Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for
Counterterrorism Communication.¶ The memo, originally prepared in March by the extremist messaging branch at the national
counterterrorism centre, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the state department, which officials said would be
distributing a version to all US embassies.¶ "It's not what you say, but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing
14 points about how to improve the presentation of the anti-terror campaign.¶ "Don't take the bait," it says, urging officials not to
react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida affiliates speak. "We should offer only minimal, if any,
response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim
world."
The “War on Terror” only dehumanizes people and creates more violence
Judith Butler, She is a professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature departments at the University of California,
Berkeley, PhD in philosophy from Yale University, April 1 2002, “Guantanamo Limbo,” found in the April 1, 2002 issue of The
Nation, http://www.merveunsal.com/try/guantanamo-limbo.html
Just as a distinction is drawn between legitimate violence and illegitimate violence according to whether the combatants are
affiliated with states, various forms of political violence are now commonly called “terrorism,” not because
there are distinguishable valences of violence, but as a way of delegitimizing violence waged by, or in the name
of, authorities deemed illegitimate by established states or, indeed, those that threaten the
hegemony of the nation-state itself. As a result, we have the sweeping dismissal of the Palestinian intifada as
“terrorism” by Ariel Sharon, whose use of state violence to destroy homes and lives is surely extreme. The use of the term
“terrorism” thus works to delegitimize certain forms of violence committed by non-state-centered political entities at the same
time that it sanctions a violent response by established states . Obviously, this has been a tactic for a long time, as
colonial states have dealt with the Palestinians and with the Irish, and it was as well a case made against the African National
Congress. But the new form that this kind of argument is taking, and the naturalized status it assumes, will only intensify
the enormously damaging consequences of the struggle for Palestinian self-determination. Israel
takes advantage of this formulation by justifying state violence against the Palestinians in the name of an infinitely expansive
conception of self-defense. So “terrorism” becomes the name to describe the violence waged by the illegitimate, whereas “legal war”
becomes the prerogative of those who can assume international recognition as legitimate states. In the current war, US
soldiers would be covered by the Geneva Conventions and US POWs would be guaranteed POW
status, but those they fight, deemed illegitimate, would have no legal recourse to those same
protections. (Indeed, the very fact that Bush subjected this policy to review appeared to stem from a fear that US soldiers might
also be summarily deprived of the same protections on foreign soil.)¶ Although the Geneva Conventions might be more
openly interpreted if they were reconvened to consider these questions (and why shouldn’t they be?), they currently
serve to reinforce the distinction between legitimate state violence and illegitimate violence waged by the stateless.
One surely needs to feel no sympathy with Al Qaeda to worry about the long-term international consequences of this
distinction. In turn, the distinction between state-sanctioned violence and illegitimate violence or “unlawful combat”
becomes the basis for the distinction between state violence and terrorism or, in the case of states whose legitimacy
is in question, state terrorism (as the Russians have tried to impute to Chechnya). In this regard, it could be said that
the stateless are terrorized by the distinction between state violence and “terrorism.”¶ The “terrorists” are considered to be
outside the law, to sanction treatment that is outside the law because of the character of their violence. The fact that these prisoners
are seen as pure vessels of violence, as Rumsfeld claimed, suggests that they do not become violent for the same kinds of reasons
that other politicized beings do, that their turn to violence can make no sense historically, or cannot make sense in the way that
conventional wars make sense, and that their violence is somehow groundless and infinite, if not innate or constitutive. If this is
“terrorism” rather than violence, it is action that has no political goal, or cannot be understood politically. It emerges, as they say,
from fanatics, extremists who do not espouse a point of view and do not have a part in the human community. But even as
Rumsfeld characterizes the prisoners in Guantánamo as individuals who will kill again if they are
not detained, imagining them as capable of an infinite violence, the US war has also established
its own relation to infinity, since it is unclear how a generalized “war on terrorism”–with all the
vagueness that implies–can ever properly end. That the violence of the prisoners is associated
with Islamic extremism or terrorism suggests that these prisoners are already cast outside the
bounds of civilization, and that the dehumanization that Orientalism already performs is
heightened now to an extreme, so that the uniqueness of this kind of war makes the humane treatment of prisoners, as
stipulated by international convention, exempt from the presumptions and protections of universality and civilization alike. ¶ The
question of who will be treated humanely presupposes that we have first settled the question of
who does and does not count as a human. And this is where the debate about Western civilization and Islam is not
merely an academic debate, a misbegotten pursuit of Orientalism by the likes of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, although
they do exemplify how notions of civilization produce the human differentially. To what extent does the nation-state operate as the
basis for our notions of what is “human”? And does the Geneva Convention encode this expectation that humans, as we know and
honor them under the law, belong primarily to nation-states? It is not just that some humans are treated as
humans, and others are dehumanized; it is rather that dehumanization–treating some humans as
outside the scope of the law–becomes one tactic by which a putatively distinct “Western”
civilization seeks to define itself over and against a population understood as, by definition, illegitimate?
America’s current efforts in the “war on terror” to preserve and spread
freedom and democracy fail and only destroy these values
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
Production and organization of freedom. Production and limitation of it, in consequence. It is here,¶ then, at the level of the
freedom’s production costs, where the notion that unfailingly accompanies it comes ¶ into play: security. It is a macro security
framework that permits that the society’s vital process in the¶ whole unfolds with a minimum of obstacles. And, thus, another
fundamental notion of liberal government¶ as understood by Foucault enters the game: the notion of danger. The game between
freedom and security functions, indeed, in connection with it: it is about the prevention of danger. That is what explains the
formidable extension of control and coercion procedures that Foucault detects as counterbalance of freedomand that he
groups under the name of disciplinary techniques. This is the repressive side of control, but it¶ does not function only this way;
instead, control and intervention are used to increment freedom.
The USFG uses the “war on terror” and a racist ideology to justify its right
to exterminate those who do not share American values
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
We have established that racism is the only mechanism that gives the possibility to bio-power to exert the sovereign right of
killing. This mechanism entails two functions: On the one hand, the function of ¶ fragmentation through which the biological realm is
divided in two fields, one that must live and one that¶ must die; on the other hand, the function that not only kills in order to live, but
to improve the own life.
In this sense, the last quote is really meaningful. The GWT was a new world framework that permitted the emergence of the US
sovereign power; that is to say, the power to determine who could live and who must die: the power to kill. It exerted this power
through a racist mechanism that, we have argued, was a¶ cultural one. In this sense, in the first place, the administration established
a fragmentation of the world¶ between those who had to live and those who had to die. Indeed, in the famous statement that later
became¶ known as the Bush doctrine -“either you are with us or you are with the terrorists”-, what was established¶ was a
world division between those who had to live (“us”) and those who had to die (Islamic17 terrorists ¶ and those who provided them
help or refuge). Indeed, in Schmitt’s terms, the terrorist enemy was not constructed as a political enemy but as an absolute
one (1966). This gave the possibility to carry out an extermination policy of those who were not with “us”. When democracy
entered the game, this bipolarity¶ became a cultural one. Now, the dichotomy passed through the form of socio-political
organization. The world was divided, thus, into the free/democratic world and the non-democratic world18. The latter was¶
compelled through force or diplomatic pressure to change. If democracy was a “God’s gift” to humanity, ¶ then it was almost
“naturalized”. It was presented as a historical necessity, without regard to particularities.¶ This is how fragmentation was established
based on the assumption that there was a system (democracy)¶ that was natural (that is, non particular, universal) and, hence, had
to live.¶
The war on terror undermines democracy and is an attempt to exercise global
control
Slaughter and Hale, May 25 2005, Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and
International Affairs at Princeton University. Thomas N Hale is special assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public
and International Affairs at Princeton University, “Hardt & Negri's 'Multitude': the worst of both worlds”,
http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-vision_reflections/marx_2549.jsp, DS)
Contra the Bush administration, Multitude holds the global war on terror to be a central obstacle to
democracy. While neo-conservatives have conflated counterterrorism with democracy promotion, Hardt & Negri have done
just the opposite, seeing most counterterrorism policy as anti-democratic. The authors see US-led
efforts as dangerous to civil liberties within nations and oppressive to the people who find
themselves in countries on the wrong side the good vs evil divide . But what does the war on terror have to do
with economic globalisation? Certainly self-described global justice activists have been quick to add the war in Iraq to their list of
complaints against the existing world order. Protestors have seen little need to provide a coherent intellectual framework for both
causes, and when called upon to do so frequently resort to the facile “blood for oil” argument, which views the war on terror as a
plan to pacify the world for capitalist exploitation. Hardt & Negri toy with this idea, but fortunately do not go so far as to endorse it
fully. Rather, they suggest a more subtle and compelling linkage. The authors never quite state the point explicitly, but they
connect resistance to neo-liberal globalisation and opposition to the American-led war on terror
by looking at both through the prism of transnational democracy. In their view both movements are motivated
by people’s desire to have a say over decisions that affect the world in which they live. People around the world feel helpless when
decisions made at the International Monetary Fund or in the boardrooms of large corporations affect their ability to work or provide
for their families. They feel similarly disenfranchised when a single country and a few of its allies decide to intervene militarily absent
multilateral authorisation or a compelling rationale. In this way both “anti-globalisation” and anti-war protests are
exercises in democracy – an attempt to “have one’s say” at the transnational level.
The War on Terror destroys Human Rights
Denike 8
(Margaret Denike is an Associate Professor of political theory in the Department of Political Science, and the Coordinator of the Law and Society Program. She holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Thought (York),
an LL.M. in Law (Queen’s), and an M.A. (UBC) and B.A. (Simon Fraser University) in English and Humanities. Formerly a professor and program coordinator in Gender Studies and of International Human Rights,
her teaching, research and writing cover topics such as theories of human rights; feminist and queer philosophies; the political activism of sexual and racial minorities; constitutional equality jurisprudence; statesanctioned discrimination and persecution; biopolitics and genealogical inquiry; and the politics of terror and security. Hypatia, Volume 23, Number 2, Spring 2008, pp. 95-121 (Article))
This shady dealings of humanitarian narratives have huge consequences for what human rights may or may not promise “humanity,” as is evident in the extensively documented accounts of how their deployment
has worked to “cancel the very gains of the progressive universal human rights movement in seemingly irreversible ways . . . to mute the voices of suffering and, in the process, regress human rights futures” (Baxi
). Deploying human rights to substantiate public violence and to impose a privatized
economic order—as with the “war on terror”—has a lasting effect on “human rights,” not merely because armed
conflict is in itself a leading cause of systemic human rights abuses against which NGOs need to continue to act, but because,
in its nefarious moralism and
“principled” self-justifications, this war, leveraged by a fear of the (Muslim, Arab) other and a
concern for the rights of “humanity,” conscripts the language of human rights and “humanitarian”
causes to substantiate daily civilian atrocities and “exceptional” measures of racial profiling,
security arrest warrants, indefinite detentions, torture, deportation, and so on, and in effect,
invariably limits what “human rights” and “humanitarian concerns” can and do mean, particularly for those vast sectors of “humanity” that are not counted as “human”
and that have engaged generations of struggles to obtain them. This leveraging is done through draconian racist policies that systemically deny
human rights to target groups that symbolize its cause (for instance, the refugees of oppressive
“regimes”), particularly to Arab and Muslim “alien” immigrants and residents of Middle Eastern
countries;17 for justifying military attacks and occupations that are conducted in the name of abstract Western values (democracy, equality, freedom, security, and liberty) against so-called “rogue
1998, 168–69
states” (Bush 2002a) or “failed states” (Ignatieff 2002) that are said to have none. Such policies and practices conducted in the name of human rights make a mockery of the notion that human rights ideals
express “one long and steady march towards progress” (Kapur 2006, 673), as the call to respond to images of suffering in distant lands, is far less interested in admitting those who suffer as refugees than it is in
intervening militarily to prevent their exodus (Orford 2003, 203).
Human Rights Violations spillover and affect all minorities
Denike 8
(Margaret Denike is an Associate Professor of political theory in the Department of Political Science, and the Coordinator of the Law and Society Program. She holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Thought (York),
an LL.M. in Law (Queen’s), and an M.A. (UBC) and B.A. (Simon Fraser University) in English and Humanities. Formerly a professor and program coordinator in Gender Studies and of International Human Rights,
her teaching, research and writing cover topics such as theories of human rights; feminist and queer philosophies; the political activism of sexual and racial minorities; constitutional equality jurisprudence; statesanctioned discrimination and persecution; biopolitics and genealogical inquiry; and the politics of terror and security. Hypatia, Volume 23, Number 2, Spring 2008, pp. 95-121 (Article))
The politics of sexual, racial, and ethnic difference—and hence of the equality, security, and
freedom that are at stake for minorities—are central to this dynamic. A consideration of the stock figures—first, of
the oppressed female human rights victim, and second, of the male tyrannical “terrorist” —that
appear in the narratives and substantiate policies of this war, enables us to elucidate these politics within its various “techniques”
and tactics (from security arrest warrants and deportations of immigrants to armed invasions) and to link the fear of the other to the
new sovereignty of the United States, that looks nothing like Kofi Anan’s vision of individuals being empowered to hold
states accountable for human rights abuses, but rather a sovereignty of corporate “defensive imperialism” (Anghie
2004, 294) and nation-state patriotism masquerading as the causes of democracy and freedom,
while perpetrating systematic human rights violations. Part and parcel of the sovereignty-creating,
colonizing tactics are those that constitute and entrench gender norms within and across national
boundaries, preserving as a model of masculinity its roles of uniformed masculine saviors whose
heroism inheres in saving helpless female victims from racialized and demonized incarnations of
evil
The Continuation of Terror Talk allows unjustified violence to anyone labeled as a
“terrorist”--- Gitmo is a major example
Said 02 (Edward, Professor at Columbia University, Punishment by Detail, Counterpunch,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/08/13/punishment-by-detail/, TS)
security is now a fabled beast. Like a unicorn it is endlessly hunted and never found,
remaining, everlastingly, the goal of future action. That over time Israel has become less secure and more unacceptable to its neighbours scarcely merits
Israeli
a moment’s notice. But then who challenges the view that Israeli security ought to define the moral world we live in? Certainly not the Arab and Palestinian leaderships who for 30 years have conceded everything
to Israeli security. Shouldn’t that ever be questioned, given that Israel has wreaked more damage on the Palestinians and other Arabs relative to its size than any country in the world, Israel with its nuclear
what Palestinians have to live through
are hidden and, more important, covered over by a logic of self-defence and the pursuit of
terrorism (terrorist infrastructure, terrorist nests, terrorist bomb factories, terrorist suspects — the
list is infinite) which perfectly suits Sharon and the lamentable George Bush. Ideas about terrorism have thus taken on a life of their
own, legitimised and re- legitimised without proof, logic or rational argument. Consider for instance the devastation of
arsenal, its air force, navy, and army limitlessly supplied by the US taxpayer? As a result the daily, minute occurrences of
Afghanistan, on the one hand, and the “targeted” assassinations of almost 100 Palestinians (to say nothing of many thousands of “suspects” rounded- up and still imprisoned by Israeli soldiers) on the other:
nobody asks whether all these people killed were in fact terrorists, or proved to be terrorists, or
were about to become terrorists. They are all assumed to be dangers by acts of simple,
unchallenged affirmation. All you need is an arrogant spokesman or two, like the loutish Ranaan Gissin, Avi Pazner, or Dore Gold, and in Washington a non-stop apologist for
ignorance and incoherence like Ari Fleisher, and the targets in question are just as good as dead. Without doubts, questions, or demurral. No need for
proof or any such tiresome delicacy. Terrorism and its obsessive pursuit have become an entirely
circular, self-fulfilling murder and slow death of enemies who have no choice or say in the matter.
Gitmo Bad – War on Terror
Guantanamo’s biopolitics otherizes religions and spurs the war on terror
Maria Egerstrom, 7-19-13, PhD student, American Civilization at Harvard University, “After Biopolitics: Religion and Regime
in Guantanamo Bay,” http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/5/6/8/5/2/p568527_index.html DS)
At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a new kind of prisoner has emerged in the figure of the “detainee.”
This new character in the War on Terror is subject to new strategies, discourses of power, and
conceptions of American sovereignty. Much like Foucault’s “delinquent” character, the character held indefinitely at
Guantanamo, who is interrogated but never tried, is the figure of the “Islamist Extremist.” Through attention to the camp’s standard
operating procedures and built environment, as well as to interrogation logs, court documents, and interviews with former detainees,
this paper examines why, and how, religion is so central to the surveillance, discipline, and interrogation of Guantanamo detainees.
The cell blocks of Guantanamo are an intensely religious space: the call to prayer is sounded five times a day, each cell has an
arrow painted on the floor that points toward Mecca, the library is stocked with books on Islam, some of them very conservative, and
the sinks in the cells are placed low to the ground to more easily facilitate wudu. The camp is designed, down to the plumbing, to not
only hold Muslims captive, but to make captives Muslim. Indeed, former detainees, as well as American military personnel, have
observed that many detainees weren’t particularly religious when they arrived at Guantanamo, but became so during their detention.
Muslim religiosity in Guantanamo is always observed and constructed within, and in reference to, the mildly secularized
Protestantism that is the normative paradigm for the American military’s understanding of Islam. It is within this discourse, too, that
military personnel define the terms “radical,” “Islamist,” and “extremist.” The detention and interrogation procedures at Guantanamo
function to make captives perform a set of resistance tactics that render detainees’ bodies and voices legible only as those of
“Islamist extremists.” In a war that constructs threat in religious terms, Guantanamo must therefore be understood not
as an end or a consequence of the War on Terror, but an active site of its production . Seen as such,
the methods and processes by which Guantanamo detainees are formed as religious subjects
reveal Guantanamo as an experimental facility in producing a new, post-biopolitical discourse of
religious terrorism which authorizes and demands the perpetual expansion of American
sovereignty. This expansion reaches both inward, as seen in the new provisions for indefinite detention of American citizens in
the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, as well as internationally, as seen in the establishment of CIA “black sites” around the
world.
Gitmo Bad – Torture
Guantanamo’s lawlessness spills over onto US soil
ACLU 10-8-08 American Civil Liberties Union, “New Documents Reveal Unlawful Guantánamo Procedures Were Also Applied
On American Soil” http://www.aclu.org/national-security/new-documents-reveal-unlawful-guantanamo-procedures-were-alsoapplied-american-soi DS)
¶ NEW YORK – According to newly released military documents, the Navy applied lawless Guantánamo protocols
in detention facilities on American soil. The documents, which include regular emails between brig officers and
others in the chain of command, uncover new details of the detention and interrogation of two U.S.
citizens and a legal resident – Yaser Hamdi, Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri – at naval brigs in Virginia and South Carolina.¶ ¶
The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic
at Yale Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union.¶ ¶ "Guantánamo was designed as a law-free zone, a
place where the government could do whatever it wanted without having to worry about whether it
was legal," said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney with the Lowenstein Clinic at Yale. "It didn't take long for that sort of
lawlessness to be brought home to our own country. Who knows how much further America would have gone if
the Supreme Court hadn't stepped in to stop incommunicado detentions in 2004?"¶ ¶ According to the documents, Navy officers
doubted the wisdom of applying Guantánamo rules on American soil. In particular, officers expressed grave concern over the effects
of the solitary confinement imposed upon the three men detained at the brigs, a practice that was considered to be even more
extreme than the isolation imposed at Guantánamo. Navy officers also exhibited frustration with the Defense Department's
unwillingness to provide the detainees with access to legal counsel or any information about their fates. ¶ ¶ "The application of
Guantánamo protocols on U.S. soil is incredibly significant and indicates how far the
administration has gone in terms of suspending the law," said Jonathan Hafetz, a staff attorney with the ACLU
National Security Project. "The Bush administration has long argued that detainees held in Guantánamo are not entitled to any
constitutional protections – an argument the Supreme Court has recently rejected. But this is not even Guantánamo – we are talking
about creating prisons beyond the law right here in America."
UN has condemned force-feeding as torture and inhumane
Warren 13 (Vince, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal and educational organization that
works to protect rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR represented clients
in two Guantanamo Supreme Court cases and coordinates the work of hundreds of pro bono attorneys representing prisoners there,
CNN publication, “Stop force-feeding inmates and close Gitmo”, May 10, http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/opinion/warren-gitmohunger-strike)
It has taken almost three months and more than 100 men embarking on a life-threatening hunger strike for
President Obama to remind himself and the nation why the prison at Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed .
Self-starvation is excruciating, but as one of our clients expressed, this is the only way the men at Guantanamo have left to tell the
world what it means to be unjustly detained without charge or trial for more than 11 years with no end in sight. The starvation
protest, which began in February, has created headlines around the world. Of the 100 men, 23 are being force fed to
keep them alive. As you read this, it's likely that some of the men are being dragged from their cells, strapped to restraint chairs, and
a rubber tube inserted up their nose and into their stomachs to pump in liquid dietary supplement. One of the men described the
traumatic experience to his attorney as having a razor blade go down through your nose and into your throat. Last week, 40
additional military medical personnel were sent to Guantanamo to assist with the force-feedings, a practice that the
American Medical Association condemned as a violation of "core ethical values of the medical
profession" and the United Nations condemned as torture and a breach of international law. Forcefeedings at Guantanamo are nothing new, and much like indefinite detention, the practice has come to define the prison. In 2005,
when the first mass hunger strike at the prison took place, the Bush administration also responded by having medical personnel
force-feed the men. Back then the men were fighting for due process and access to attorneys; eight years later and with more than
half the prison population cleared for release by the Obama administration itself, the men are asking for an end to their indefinite
detention. As President Obama said last week, the prison is "not necessary to keep America safe. It's expensive, it's inefficient,
it hurts us in terms of international standing, it lessens cooperation with our allies in counterterrorism efforts." It is also illegal and
inhumane, as the United Nations' top independent human rights experts and the international human rights body with
jurisdiction over the United States, the OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, reminded the president. I would like to
believe that if the president could see what lawyers at my organization have witnessed during visits with our clients in the last few
weeks, he would act without delay to make good on the promise he made to close Guantanamo Bay four years ago. The toll that
starvation and the violence of force-feedings have taken on the men is painful to see. They have lost 30 to
40 pounds, they look skeletal, and many are losing consciousness and coughing up blood. Last we heard, one of our clients
weighed 90 pounds.
Because of its cruel nature force feeding is a breach of international law
Reuters 13 (an international news agency headquartered in New York, United States, and a division of Thomson Reuters.
Until 2008, the Reuters news agency formed part of an independent company, Reuters Group plc, which was also a provider of
financial market data. Reuters Editorial, “UN calls force-feeding at Guantanamo 'torture'” http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-prisontorture-un-677/)
The UN human rights office has condemned force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, calling it ‘torture’ and a breach of
international law. At least 21 inmates out of the 100 officially on strike are being force-fed through nasal tubes. "If it's perceived
as torture or inhuman treatment -- and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by
international law," said Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, AFP reported.
The UN bases its position on that of the World Medical Association, which consists of 102 nations including the United
States, Coville explained. The international organization, a watchdog for ethics in healthcare, said back in 1991 that
forcible feeding is "a form of inhuman treatment" and “never ethnically acceptable.” "Even if
intended to benefit, feeding accompanied with threats, coercion, force or use of physical
restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. Equally unacceptable is the force
feeding of some detainees in order to intimidate or coerce other hunger strikers to stop fasting ," it
said. According to the WMA’s 1975 declaration, artificial feeding methods should never be used without a prisoner's permission.
The prisoner has the right to refuse food if a physician considered the person able to rationally take the decision,
being aware of the consequences. If the person is unable to take the decision or agrees to the feeding then it can be used, says the
WMA.
Gitmo Bad – Biopower
The unjust detainment and killing of Guantanamo prisoners justifies more
biopolitical actions by the USFG
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
What is the function of racism in the new technology of power? If biopower has the mandate of making live, if it has life as its
object and objective, Foucault asks himself how does it exert the sovereign power, the power to kill. The answer is racism,
inscribed in mechanisms of the state. Therefore, liberal discourse¶ eff ected a rewriting of the war of race’s discourse that
substituted the historical war for a fight for life and¶ a binary society for a biologically monistic society. At the same time, discourse
about the unjust state is¶ substituted for a state not considered as the instrument of one race against the other, but as the protector¶
of the integrity, the superiority and the purity of the only one race: human race. Liberal humanitarianism ¶ is born.¶ It is important to
note that, understood this way racism appears not as an ideological question, but as a mechanism linked with a determined
technology of power (biopolitics). It is what permits establishing a separation inside the realm of life (that is, in the realm that
power has absorbed and put under its¶ administration) between what can live and what must die. The distinction between
races and its organization into a hierarchy is, thus, a manner of fragmenting the field of the biological. In a few words, racism
is “the¶ means of introducing a cut in the realm of life that power took in charge: the cut between what must live¶ and what must die”
(Foucault, 2008: 230). This is understood by Foucault as the first function of racism: ¶ the function of fragmentation. It is important to
withhold this fact: the first function of racism is the¶ fragmentation of a realm that is understood as being biological and universal
(thus, non political).
By framing the detainees as enemies of the sovereign, Guantanamo destroys all
basic human rights and validates biopolitical manipulation and torture.
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
For Agamben, the central image (and producer) of life during a timeshrouded in the friend/enemy distinction is the concentration
camp. The campis a “no man’s land between coma and death” (Agamben, 1998, 161). The campcomes into
existence as a political concept when the state of exception isnormalized. The camp is not a temporary camp, a displacement
camp for refugees on their way to someplace else, but a permanent feature of the modernworld, modern
politics, and of modern thought (Agamben, 1998, 174). It is a place to house the¶ zoes¶ of the world (Agamben notes
that in Greek,¶ zoe¶ has no plural; 1998, 1). Because it houses the exceptional, it is a space of exception.When Heinrich Himmler
created “a concentration camp for political prisoners,”Agamben writes, he placed it “outside the rules of penal and prison
law”(Agamben, 1998, 169). With the construction of prison camps in Guantánamoas places outside the
law, the exception once again becomes the norm.Because the exception has taken over for the
norm such that the two are“indistinguishable” (Agamben, 1998, 170), the camp is the realization of thenormality of
the exception. Guantánamo as a liminal space is the natural placefor those held captive in the war on
terror because those it holds “do not valuelife.” The inhabitants of the camp are those who have
been denationalized,stripped of their “political status,” and “deprived of their rights and
prerogatives” (Agamben, 1998, 171) to such an extent that any harm committedagainst them no
longer appears as a crime (Bybee, 2002; Savage, 2010;Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child).
Theinhabitants of the camps are¶ zoe as such¶ . They are the remnants of the activelife, made bare by
their status as enemies of the sovereign. For Agamben, thecreation of the friend/enemy distinction no longer relies on
law (if it ever did).Rather, following Foucault, Agamben posits the creation of the¶ zoe¶ as an aspectof the onset of biopolitics.
Biopolitics is the result of a certain “art of government” (Foucault, 2008, 2) that arose at a particular time in westernhistory and
thought as an effort to “rationalize the problems posed togovernmental practice by phenomena characteristic of a set of living
beingsforming a population” (Foucault, 2008, 317). Biopolitics has no sovereign willdriving its application; there is no Being behind it.
Rather, it is an application of¶ rationalities and consequently, for Foucault, it has a contingent quality to it. For Agamben, however, it
is a strategy for governance amid the presence of theenemy. Agamben actualizes the¶ homo sacer ¶ because the¶ homo sacer ¶
is“exemplary of biopolitics” (Ansah, 2010, 147).
The state acts through Guantanamo to create norms
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
What, then, is Guantánamo’s place in the structure of Agamben’sthought? Guantánamo is not only a biopolitical
space but also a place of anomie because, though the law has been suspended (the detainees have no
legalclassification outside of being enemy combatants, which means, despite somesuccess in the Supreme Court, they can remain
in confinement for the durationof the war on terror), it still exists as a reality (the rule of law is upheld in theabsence of a law
governing enemy combatants). What Guantánamo has created,in this view, is a peculiar hybrid: an
institution of restriction and an entity thatdecides who lives, who is known, and who disappears
(Meek, 2003).Guantánamo appears as the rupture in modern thought between the norm andthe exception. Its appearance highlights
the collapsed distinction betweennature and law, and therefore represents the normality of the “state of exceptionas a permanent
structure of juridico-political de-localization and dis-location”(Agamben, 1998, 38). As the state of nature always exists
within the state of civil society, the state of exception exists within the norm.
Gitmo Bad – Human Rights
US policies at Guantanamo violate human rights laws
Human Rights Watch et al, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Conectas Direitos Humanos,
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Asian Forum for
Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), International Service for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, Cairo
2013
Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), JUNE 5,
, HRC 23 - Statement Delivered Under Item 4, on Behalf of 9 NGOs,
with Support of 26 NGOs, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/05/un-human-rights-council-us-should-stop-detaining-individualswithout-charge-or-trial
The United States continues to detain individuals for indefinite periods without charge or trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba
and at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan in violation of its obligations under international human rights law.¶ Of the 779 prisoners
once detained at Guantanamo, 166 remain. Of those, the US designated 86 in 2010 as eligible for transfer to their home or third
countries. But transfers have stalled due to a combination of congressional and executive restrictions. In recent months,
more than 100 prisoners have engaged in a hunger strike, reportedly out of desperation because of their prolonged
indefinite detention. The US military stated as of June 1 that it is force-feeding 37 of them. The force-feeding of competent
hunger-striking prisoners violates international legal protections against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and
contravenes medical ethics standards.¶ The United States also continues to use fundamentally flawed military commissions
at Guantanamo, which fall far short of international fair trial standards, to prosecute terrorism suspects even though US
federal courts also have jurisdiction. The commissions allow the use as evidence of information obtained by coercion, lack
independence, and provide little meaningful access to the proceedings for the public. They also fail to protect attorney-client
communications. In February it was uncovered that a government agency had installed listening devices disguised as smoke
detectors in attorney-client meeting rooms. In April, pre-trial hearings were delayed because the defense attorneys’ computer
system was compromised. In his speech, President Obama signaled a plan to move the military commissions to the US.
While doing so might address some logistical concerns, it would not change their fundamental unfairness.
Human rights violations at Guantanamo weaken America’s reputation and
national security
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, MAY 16, 2013, Statement to the Senate Armed Services
Committee on the AUMF, Targeted Killing, & Guantanamo, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/us-statement-senate-armedservices-committee-aumf-targeted-killing-guantanamo
By contrast, Congress’s insistence on using military commissions at Guantanamo has been an unmitigated disaster. The
only two convictions obtained after full trials have both been overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit; the five other convictions obtained were by plea bargain. During the same time that the military
commissions have obtained these seven convictions, federal courts have prosecuted some 500 terrorism suspects. In addition,
there are profound and legitimate concerns about the fairness of a system that, among other things, permits the introduction into
evidence of coerced statements from witnesses, allows the military to hand-pick the jury pool, and severely compromises
the attorney-client privilege. ¶ Roughly half of the Guantanamo detainees have theoretically been approved for transfer to
their home or third countries, and those transfers can proceed if the administration certifies that appropriate security
arrangements have been made. The administration should accelerate its efforts to make those arrangements. ¶ However, the
administration also claims that there remains a category of detainees who are “too dangerous” to release but who cannot
be tried because either there is insufficient admissible evidence to prosecute them or their acts did not amount to a
chargeable crime. The administration purports to hold these men under the above-described war powers. But even under war
rules, the purpose of detention is to keep the enemy from returning to the battlefield. As the US involvement in the Afghan
war winds down, it is not clear what war the men released from Guantanamo would return to. And if the fear is that they
would join in criminal activity, the answer lies in criminal prosecution, including for such inchoate crimes as conspiracy or attempt,
not the “Minority Report” approach of detaining them for crimes that they might at some future point plan to commit. ¶
Given Guantanamo’s enormous stain on America’s reputation, there is good reason to believe that these continuing
detentions are causing more harm than good to America’s security and counterterrorism efforts. President Obama himself
has stated that keeping Guantanamo open weakens US national security. And for the same reasons that long-term detention
without trial is wrong and counterproductive in Guantanamo, it would be wrong and counterproductive if moved to the United
States. That would simply replicate Guantanamo in another locale. ¶ One of Congress’s most solemn duties is to protect human
rights, especially the fundamental rights to life and liberty. War is sometimes necessary, but before embarking on that
dangerous path, the risk to rights should be weighed carefully. This nation has now been on a war footing for an extraordinarily
long time. Security risks will never be eliminated. But, as the Afghan war winds down, we have arrived at the stage where those
risks can be managed without the danger to rights that further declared “war” entails. It is time to retire the AUMF and the
unlawful practices it has spawned and sustained.
We seek to use Guantanamo to violate Geneva and dehumanize inmates
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
It is not, however, the purpose of this paper to examine the rights of those detained at Guantánamo. Rather, we seek to
situate the detainees withinthe broader discursive field that relegates them to a lower status than
prisonersof war because of the state of exception that they inhabit . Following the eventsof September 11,
President Bush characterized the war on terror as a war thatdemands the full strength and power
of the national security apparatus. Thiswould be a war like no other the United States has engaged in:I know that some
people question if America is really in a war atall. They view terrorism more as a crime—a problem to besolved mainly with law
enforcement and indictments. After theWorld Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of theguilty were indicted, tried,
convicted, and sent to prison. But thematter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and
drawing up more ambitious plans.After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enoughto serve our enemies with legal
papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States—and war is whatthey got. (Bush, 2004)In a situation
governed by a war mentality rather than by the formalities of criminal justice, where the protections of due process are higher, the
BushAdministration abandoned concerns for abiding by established judicial normsregarding
prisoners of war (Mayer, 2007). Attorney General Gonzales argued that “this new paradigm [the global war on terror]
renders obsolete Geneva’sstrict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint
some of its provisions” (Barry et al., 2004, 3). In this new configuration, Guantánamo isthe rule by which the exception is
defined. And because the status of theGuantánamo detainees signifies more than a legal void, in the next twosections, we turn to
three key thinkers on the question of sovereignty, biopower,and the state of exception (Foucault, Agamben, and Carl Schmitt), to
discussthe contested meaning of sovereignty and the implications for understandingthe role of the excluded in an age of exception.
Gitmo Bad – Perception of Legal System
The refusal to give due process rights to detainees at Guantanamo isolates the
U.S. from other nations and damages the reputation of its legal system
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International
University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly
articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international
law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law,
He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the
17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev.
163 – GUANTÁNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN
EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57-Wayne-L-Rev-163-GuantanamoUnderstanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-of-American-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray
This continued refusal to accord basic due process to the accused is not only antithetical to the
legal landscape prevailing in other parts of the world, but also is a sharp departure from countries
where justice mechanisms are at best subpar compared to the U.S. For example, in a still-developing
terrorist case unfolding in Pakistan, prosecutors indicted five Americans on terror-related offenses, laying out serious charges
including waging war against Pakistan and plotting to attack the country. Even there, the detainees were granted defense lawyers
and procedural due process rights under controlling domestic law and inconformity with applicable international law. The moral of
this story is that despite its own legitimate existential threat to both its system of government and its
way of life, a country like Pakistan, which is never considered to be a beacon of Western justice, a
country with a long record of torturing detainees, adheres to the rule of law when it comes to
dealing with detainees. Why can’t the U.S. follow suit? Even Pakistan can charge and try suspected terrorists in a civilian
court system. Many Western nations other than the U.S. have shown in the recent past that they have the courage to go through the
same open, court-based justice system. Therefore, the U.S. is becoming more isolated in its insistence on
applying uniquely designed tribunals to ensure conviction for terrorist detainees . While the Obama
Administration views itself as the self-anointed international arbiter of justice and continues to lecture the rest of the world about their
respective violations of human rights, why isn’t America’s justice system robust enough to handle justice mechanisms for terrorism
suspects? I seek to explore the answers to establish the final dimension of the narrative of Guantánamo as it must be understood
through the dual threads of stark capitalism and domesticated exceptionalism.
Gitmo Bad – Targeted Killings
Human rights violations at Guantanamo lead to unjustified targeted killings
worldwide
Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, MAY 16, 2013, Statement to the Senate Armed Services
Committee on the AUMF, Targeted Killing, & Guantanamo, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/us-statement-senate-armedservices-committee-aumf-targeted-killing-guantanamo
Moreover, when it comes to combatants in an armed conflict, the power to detain can easily be linked to the power to kill. If the
United States is going to claim the right to detain “combatants” without end on the basis of a global war unconnected to a
traditional battlefield, against a non-state enemy that does not control any substantial territory, other nations will
undoubtedly make similar claims. And, once governments identify people as combatants, however wrongful that may be,
they will inevitably claim the power not only to detain them without charge or trial but also to kill them. Although the United
States currently detains many people who are clearly not combatants – those drivers, cooks, doctors and financiers, among others –
it should be mindful of how its policies can be interpreted.
Gitmo Bad – American Exceptionalism
Guantanamo keeps American Exceptionalism alive
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International
University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly
articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international
law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law,
He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the
17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev.
163 – GUANTÁNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN
EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57-Wayne-L-Rev-163-GuantanamoUnderstanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-of-American-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray
American Exceptionalism broadly refers to the opinion that the U.S.is structurally, fundamentally,
and qualitatively different from other nations, as it emerged out of a revolution and forged a unique ideology. On
the surface, American Exceptionalism manifested itself on the promise of liberty, egalitarianism,
and individualism—a narrative solidified by the writings of Alexis De Tocqueville to emphasize American’s unique and
heightened status among the comity of nations. Unfortunately, however, the majority of Americans
misinterpreted the true meaning of exceptionalism, as they failed to see its iniquities¶
imperialism, and war-mongering, remnants of which still reverberate through the continued
evolution of Guantánamo.
Guantanamo was created out of fear as a symbol of security and American
exceptionalism
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International
University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly
articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international
law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law,
He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the
17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev.
163 – GUANTÁNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN
EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57-Wayne-L-Rev-163-GuantanamoUnderstanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-of-American-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray
The existential threat presented by 9/11 not only brought forth paralytic psychosis, but it also
temporarily decoupled the populace from that entrenched feeling of exceptionalism. The feeling of
defeat was so deep in the minds of the populace that the human construct needed an earthshattering mechanism to deal with the decoupling to feel normal again. Against this backdrop, the
Administration and the security apparatus of the state resorted to organized violence against the
source of the threat, which was manifested in the events of human violations at Guantánamo and
evolved within a broader dehumanization mechanism. Thus, Guantánamo provided both the
populace and the Administration impetus for dehumanization, which the security apparatus
embarked on with impunity. As the history of Guantánamo, the events surrounding the detainees, and their detention
process unfolds, the legal affairs and events associated with this detention have come to light in drips and drabs. Despite a paucity
of admissions, it is clear that, in many cases, indefinite detentions have been sustained via manufactured evidence. It is also clear
that a vast number of these terrorism charges will not prevail in a transparent system of justice. ¶ But every victim wants redemption.
Every injured person wants retribution and desires that some living entity be held accountable for their pain. Herein lays the paradox
of Guantánamo. If the whole saga of Guantánamo is stripped out of the broader U.S. detention policy,
we might be able to align American detention policy along the general contours of international
humanitarian law (IHL). At the fundamental level, human rights law is premised on its ontological
independence from the state sovereign. Fundamental¶ jus cogens¶ norms apply everywhere as they are premised on
shared humanity. In addition, the law of fundamental rights has an omnipotent permanent nature, except
in Guantánamo, which is characterized by absolute disjunction from most provisions of IHL. This
systemic illegality did not creep in by chance, nor did it develop in a vacuum. This exuberance of the monopoly of
state violence did not cross into lawlessness by happenstance. This was done by design, with a predicated outcome in
mind. This is because the American domestic agenda requires a set of human detainees perpetually
responsible and permanently incarcerated for the wound of 9/11 to be soothed and for the
existential threat to disappear. That is why any effort to bring transparency to the justice process
has been confronted with a multitude of obstacles. ¶ The fundamental building block for a criminal
justice mechanism is due process and the rights of the accused to be accorded with that due
process of law. This is premised on irrefutable and confrontational evidence that can be challenged within adequate legal
protection. Because the evidence gathering mechanism and the quality of evidence against most
terrorism suspects is suspect and flimsy at best, the real prospect of bringing civilian trial
proceedings is becoming increasingly remote or non-existent. Imagine if this quality of evidence
finds its way into traditional civilian proceedings. The outcome in such prospective terrorist trial proceedings
would cause a suspect to be found not guilty. What will happen to the domestic population? The subjects of
existential threats need their dignity and the feeling of invulnerability restored. They require the
outcome of such trials to be predictable in finding maximum punishment of the suspects. This
then leads us to see the Guantánamo proceedings as a vehicle to establish a universally accepted
domesticated response. We begin to see why the framework for closure of Guantánamo has not been constructed, because
any framework of closure for Guantánamo must first embrace the domesticated exceptionalism of Americans and this domesticated
exceptionalism is completely disjunctive with the transparent notion of justice. I submit that closure of Guantánamo will remain mired
in uncertainty and confusion
*****is this argument a problem for our aff?*************
Guantanamo and other aspects of the war on terror perpetuate American
Exceptionalism and racism
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
The meeting of exceptionalism, liberalism and the colossal US military machine is explosive. Because the¶ idea of
exceptionalism (reified as it is, not being criticized) expresses some sort of superiority that not only¶ gives the US the “right” of
lecturing other people on how to organize their societies, but also establishes a sort of hierarchy of life value, at the top of
which rest American lives. If we add to this the disproportionate¶ military apparatus and a liberal discourse affirming US action is
carried out in the name of Humanity and¶ not because of self-interest, the real possibility to carry out extermination policies
towards those who do not agree with the way of life that is being imposed on them emerges. This is one way to understand a¶
fundamental US paradox: While it has had the leading role in constructing the most complex international legal order to
maintain peace, it has, at the same time, constructed a colossal military machine -without a¶ peer competitor- that cannot be
understood solely in terms of defense (of Humanity). What we are trying to¶ emphasize is the intrinsic linkage between US
democracy and violence and the danger that accompanies it¶ when used in the name of universality, because it can lead to an
exterminating violence. As Benjamin once¶ said, this violence is not just a conservative one, but can act as a founder one (1995).
And this is important¶ too: No democracy works without violence and -we do not have to forget- violence is in the origins of US¶
democracy. Indeed, it was built on the genocide of natives and slavery. Furthermore, must consider this an¶ open chapter in
history: in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq (just for citing some examples) US is currentlyexercising founder violence.¶ Whether
the exceptionalism is understood as an example or as a right and a duty to impose particular¶ values on other people, both
meanings shed light on the sense of superiority that permeates US identity. ¶ We can affirm thus that American exceptionalism is
no more than a form of racism. This assertion deserves¶ further development.
American exceptionalism justifies extermination of the other
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
In this context, talking about the Bush administration appears to be almost an obligation. Indeed, after ¶ raising the WMD and the
Saddam Hussein-Al Qaida liaisons questions, the discourse of the previous US administration turned to democracy. The
diagnosis was that terrorism was an eff ect of freedom/democracy deficit in the Middle East region; hence, the treatment
implied its imposition. As we have held before, the¶ Bush administration tried to amalgamate interests and values. Freedom and
security: the two principal features of the biopolitical power strongly emerged. Indeed, after 9-11, the most important interest
of US¶ appeared to be a vital one: assuring the nation. The main value, what (it was said) distinguished US from the rest of the
world, was freedom, homologated with its democratic system. Thus, security adopted notjust a conservative character, linked
with survival, but a multiplier one: it was not just about protection but about improvement as well.¶ As said, liberal
democracy is expected to be fully inclusive, forgetting that it is based (as we have seen) on exclusion. Furthermore, the
dialectic inclusion/exclusion still works here, with the augmented risk that exclusion takes the form of an exterminating one. That
is, if liberal hegemony aspires to a universal inclusion,it takes the risk of: 1. including the other in a hierarchical way, through
the negation of his otherness (thus,¶ turning it in someone similar, erasing its diff erences); 2. exterminating those who do not
accept being included. And it is here where cultural racism works, because it is the mechanism which permits the US¶ or -now
that the North American power aspires to play a low profile role in the interventionist moves- the¶ liberal powers in general, to kill in
the name of certain universalities: freedom and Humanity. The US policy¶ towards Iraq and Afghanistan and (with some
diff erences) last intervention in Libya, where many people¶ have been killed on behalf of their own well-being, are a few examples
of what we are trying to explain.
American exceptionalism is the mentality behind the USFG’s actions
Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in Sociology at Universidad
de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales
2011
(Institute of International Relations),
, “Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and¶ racism,”
http://www2.hu-berlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf
Obviously, if it is assumed that the expansion of the American model represents the improvement of the world, in this
assumption it is implicit the idea of US’ superiority, entailed in that of American exceptionalism.¶ In sum, American cultural
racism, is debtor of the American exceptionalism that crosses the whole history of the US and it is clear in the assumption
that “the world will be not just safer but better” if everybody adopts liberal democracy. It is important to note, as we have
seen, that this form of racism is shared by the entire US political spectrum. As Krauthammer held, the Democratic critique of
war in Iraq was not a¶ critique of policy, but one of process (Krauthammer, 2004). As Rosati argues, ¶ “Americans have such a
strong faith in American virtue and progress that it is difficult for them to understand, let alone accept, the value of
alternative paths to economic and political [I would add: and cultural] development divorced from the American model”
(1993: 395). If we add to this the limited interest of the American public in foreign aff airs (what would suppose to know¶ and think
about foreign realities and histories), the statements of US politicians that justify Foreign Policy ¶ in certain ways and not in others (in
ways that can be labeled as racist), can be accepted uncritically.
Biopower Bad
The biopolitical state reproduces war, patriarchy, and other hegemonic social
orders
(Dominic Corva, 2009, Director at The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, BS in Economics, University of
Houston. BA, Creative Writing, University of Arizona. MA and PhD, Geography, University of Washington. “Biopower and the
Militarization of the Police Function” http://www.academia.edu/298029/Biopower_and_the_Militarization_of_the_Police_Function,
DS)
Hardt and Negri’s central claim with respect to this task is that “war has become a regime of biopower, a form of
rule aimed not only at controlling the population but producing and reproducing all aspects of
social life” (2004, 13). It iswell beyond the scope of this review to examine Foucault’s theorization of biopower,¶ 2¶ but it is
important to point out that Hardt and Negri’s inclusion of “controlling the population” in their definition is consistent with an oftenoverlooked aspect of governmentality, the mode of governance in which strategiesof sovereign power are subsumed by biopower.
This aspect is the inclusion of sovereign power, rather than its total eclipse, in strategies associated with liberalgovernmentality (see
Foucault in Burchell et al, 1991, 102). In this article, I use theterm “sovereign power” to denote the use of state-sanctioned force
(what Foucaultcalls negative or repressive power) to control domestic and/or foreign territories. And “biopower,” though it is
articulated with strategies of sovereign power, positively produces subjects of governance
through techniques of normalization. Biopolitical strategies of governance secure the
reproduction of hegemonic¶ 3¶ social orders (capitalist, patriarchal, masculinist, sexist, racist and
so forth). For Foucault, both strategies are articulated and dispersed through the territorial state, to addressthe problem of
governing a national population. The state, with its attendant sovereign functions, is an effect of
hegemonic orders, while at the same time a necessary nexus for the dispersal of hegemonyfriendly, mostly biopolitical but also sovereign, strategies of governance.
The state imposing biopower on foreign bodies justifies coercive violence and
violates human rights
(Dominic Corva, 2009, Director at The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, BS in Economics, University of
Houston. BA, Creative Writing, University of Arizona. MA and PhD, Geography, University of Washington. “Biopower and the
Militarization of the Police Function” http://www.academia.edu/298029/Biopower_and_the_Militarization_of_the_Police_Function,
DS)
This brief conceptualization of the liberal police function as biopolitical has some significant shortcomings. It is profoundly silent with
respect to spatialdifference. It attempts to describe the police function of the welfare state, whichtook quite a different form in the
U.S., for example, as compared to theNetherlands. And to put it mildly, the global South did not have a comparable experience with
the welfare state. But it does beg the question of how the age of neoliberalization has seen the return of a much more coercive and
militant policefunction where the welfarist model was once ascendant. This last critique bears special relevance to the question of
how war has become a regime of biopower, and for coming to better understanding of what that might mean for the
unevenness of sovereign power in Empire’s biopolitical order. The welfare state’s domestic territorialization of the
criminal justice subject included the criminal in regimes of national citizenship: one who has
citizenshiprights and, good or bad, deserves some forms of state protection. On the otherhand , the foreign
territorialization of the war subject helped constitute what itmeant not to be a citizen: one who is
not party to the social contract, and thereforeis subject to coercive violence in defense of the
national population. The war/military function has historically been based on principles of state
sovereignty, which create a clearly defined outside against which to operate—the spatial orderof
classical geopolitics. The soldier is unconcerned with the liberal rights of histargets, operating in
the state of emergency that is war, intent upon killing theenemy in order to secure domestic
territory. As Hardt and Negri point out, this model of warfare identifies its adversariesas foreign citizens and territorializes its
battlegrounds as bordered places (2004,37). It ends when soldiers surrender and territories are occupied. The
biopoliticization of the military function happens when its transnational subjectsare no longer
specific people and places but abstract categories of dangerous abnormality. War as a global
regime of biopower is war against categories of riskto society that could be produced by anyone,
anywhere. “Terror” and “drugs,” totake the paradigmatic examples, are vectors of transnational danger to lawabiding,freedom-loving citizens of the global economy, rather than territorialized enemiesof states
and national populations.
US biopower in the southern hemisphere justifies social prejudice and causes
more violence
(Dominic Corva, 2009, Director at The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, BS in Economics, University of
Houston. BA, Creative Writing, University of Arizona. MA and PhD, Geography, University of Washington. “Biopower and the
Militarization of the Police Function” http://www.academia.edu/298029/Biopower_and_the_Militarization_of_the_Police_Function,
DS)
U.S. drug war programs have historically been located in Southeast Asia,Southwest Asia, and Latin America. However, the crack
hysteria of the 1980s,coinciding with the worst of the Latin American debt crisis, meant that
thegeographies of cocaine’s commodity chain have focused U.S. leverage in thewestern hemisphere. Since 1986,
only three times has presidential decertification without the national interest waiver occurred: Panama in 1989; and Colombia in1995
and 1996. The former decertification was followed by a military invasion,and the arrest of Manuel Noriega on charges of drug
trafficking. The latterimmediately preceded the fall of the recalcitrant Samper administration. ThePastrana administration is credited
with coming up with the idea for PlanColombia, which in its original formulation involved European developmentassistance and
concentrated on facilitating the peace process. The European Unionbacked out of the plan when the U.S. insisted that its assistance
be conditioned onand complemented with the “stick” of militarization (Schönrock-Martinez, 2006).Today, Plan Colombia is primarily
a package of military aid designed to more fullyarm Colombia’s army and police (Isaacson, 2005). A historical geography of
theMajors certification process demonstrates at least two significant things about how the militarization of the police function has
been transnationalized through the waron drugs.First, it has been exported via transnational economic governance throughconsent
leveraged by a carrot-and-stick technique. Certainly, the “stick” includesthe expansion of the penal state and the militarization of
drug war policing. Butalso, the “carrot” of development aid is produced through the “stick” of
povertyand Southern vulnerability reproduced by the neoliberal development andglobalization
characteristics of Empire. Given the threat of a U.S. veto onmultilateral development bank loans, alongside suspension of
bilateral aid, Majors certification should be considered a structural adjustment conditionality alongsidethose laid out in the
Washington Consensus, and as such part-and-parcel of neoliberal governmentality. The overt politicization of
transnational aid throughnational legislation has been acquiesced by Empire’s institutions of
neoliberal governance. To a large degree, European governments have consented to theleveraged exportation of the
warfare/carceral model to the South by the U.S., whileretaining for themselves more welfarist approaches to the question of
transnationalprohibition—and more recently, outright decriminalization.¶ 8¶ Second, the militarization of police forces
in
Latin America, the presence of U.S. Department of Justice personnel on foreign territory, the
normalization of ecocide through forced aerial eradication, and the rise of mass incarceration all¶
signal a thickening of the police function against underprivileged racial, ethnic, and
socioeconomic groups. Many of these have responded to debt crisis-inducedausterity by growing “dangerous harvests”
(Steinberg et al, 2004) or becomingdisposable, risk-taking labor for narco-capitalism (Sudbury, 2006). The enemies of drug
war policies are embodied as gendered, racialized, ethnic and poor people, but for the thickened
police function they are first and foremost symptoms of transnational disorder: the “scourges” of
drugs, illicit economic trade, and unproductive labor. This thickening of the police function against vulnerable
subjects has widerconsequences than those directly related to militarization. It also produces certainsubjects through the creation of
a not-insignificant illicit economy. The U.N.estimates the value of the global drug market at approximately $450 billion, whichis much
closer to the size of the global oil economy than it is to that of agriculturalstaples (Thoumi, 2003). This illicit economy is
fed by the militarization of the police function: high risk means high profit and increased use of
violence to produce and maintain that profit. The same offshore banks that serve as corporateand private tax shelters for the
rich serve as sites of money laundering for theprofits of narco-capital. This makes transnational corporations and
transnationalorganized crime allies in their strategies to avoid accountability to the state and anyefforts to democratize transnational
financial governance. These spaces of invisibility also make drug trafficking a growth industry of choice for mafias,insurgents,
clandestine government operations, diversifying oligarchs and corruptgovernment officials at all levels (including the police) all over
the world (seeNordstrom, 2000). Of course, it also provides economic opportunities forunderemployed labor and people with nothing
to lose but their lives. Labor exploitation takes on a whole new dimension when one’s job requirements
includethe willingness to risk death and/or incarceration, but some entry-level jobs doallow one to
travel the world (drug mules, for example).
Biopower caused the holocaust and the impacts of racism
Rabinow et al 12-01-2003, Paul Rabinow, professor of anthropology at UC Berkeley, Along with Nikolas Rose, Department
of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science, “Thoughts on the Concept of Biopower Today,”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/pdf/rabinowandrose-biopowertoday03.pdf DS)
Holocaust is undoubtedly one configuration that modern biopower can take . Racisms
allows
power to sub-divide a population into subspecies known as races, to fragment it, and to allow a
relationship in which the death of the other, of the inferior race, can be seen as something that will
make life in general healthier and purer: as Foucault put it in 1976 ìracism justifies the death-function in the economy
of biopower by appealing to the principle that the death of others makes one biologically stronger insofar as ones is a member of a
It is true that in this lecture he suggests that it is the emergence of biopower
that inscribes [racism] in the mechanisms of the State as the basic mechanism of power, as it is
exercised in modern States. (2003: 254). But the Nazi regime was, in his view, exceptional ñ ìa paroxysmal developmentî:
ìWe have, then, in Nazi society something that is really quite extraordinary: this is a society which has
generalized biopower in an absolute sense, but which has also generalized the sovereign right to
killÖ to kill anyone, meaning not only other people but also its own people Ö a coincidence between a
race or a population (2003: 258).
generalized biopower and a dictatorship that was at once absolute and retransmitted throughout the entire social bodyî (2003: 260).
). Biopower in the form it took under National Socialism was a complex mix of the politics of life and the politics of death ñ as Robert
Proctor points out, Nazi doctors and health activists waged war on tobacco, sought to curb exposure to asbestos, worried about the
over use of medication and X-rays, stressed the importance of a diet for of petrochemical dies and preservatives, campaigned for
whole-grain bread and foods high in vitamins and fiber, and many were vegetarians (Proctor, 1999). But within this complex, the
path to the death camps was dependent upon a host of other historical, moral, political and technical conditions. Holocaust is neither
exemplary of thanato-politics, nor the hidden dark truth of biopower.
Biopower justifies holocaust
Keith Crome 2009, Keith Crome is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Manchester Metropolitan university. He is the author of
Lyotard and Greek Thought: Sophistry, and the co-editor of the Lyotard Reader and Guide, “THE NIHILISTIC AFFIRMATION OF
LIFE: BIOPOWER AND BIOPOLITICS IN THE WILL TO KNOWLEDGE,”
http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia06/parrhesia06_crome.pdf DS)
It is for this reason that Foucault posits a connection between biopolitics, biopower and the holocaust ,
for as he remarks: “for the first time in history, the possibilities of the social sciences are made known, and at once it becomes
possible both to protect life and to authorise a holocaust.”41 It is in this sense that Foucault can say that
what are often regarded as the two pathological forms of power in the twentieth century, Fascism and
Stalinism, are, despite their historical uniqueness, “not quite original”, for they “used and extended mechanisms
already present in most other societies [... and] in spite of their own internal madness, they used
to a large extent, the ideas and the devices of our political rationality.”42 Certainly I do not want to be
understood to be claiming that Fascism and Stalinism are identical, or that the differences between them are irrelevant, nor do I
want to be taken to be claiming that Foucault would himself have been dismissive of the differences between them. Rather, what I
am claiming is that, on the one hand, Foucault’s genealogical attention to the effectiveness of power allows us to
distinguish the historical specificity of modern genocide. For rather than simply distinguishing it by the quantity
of those killed, and the means by which such quantities of people were killed, Foucault allows us to grasp the essential
transformation at issue, namely the political and philosophical transformation of the relation to life itself. As he argues “ if
genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the
ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species,
the race, and the large-scale phenomena of population (Foucault, 137). On the other hand—and I take this to be
equally important—here we find Foucault expressly arguing that “our political rationality”—liberal governmentality—is not extrinsic to
genocide, totalitarianism, or despotism. Biopolitics is, then, intrinsically related to thanatopolitics. This is in sharp contrast to Negri,43
who argues that “thanatopolitics is neither an internal alternative” to biopolitics, nor “a biopolitical ambiguity”, but its exact opposite,
“an authoritarian transcendence, an apparatus of corruption”.44 If Negri can make such an affirmation it is not because he has
misread Foucault: his reading of Foucault is, in many respects, insightful and acute, and worthy of attention. Rather, it is because he
wants to claim that linking biopolitics to thanatopolitics as I have done here is to “overestimate biopower whilst underestimating the
possibility of resistance”.45 Yet, the possibility of resistance is, for Negri, to be found in the spontaneous production of subjectivity
that results from biopolitics, a claim that itself fundamentally confuses praxis, practical activity, with production, and which, as I have
argued above, reproduces the nihilism of biopolitics as it tries to evoke some means of combating it by collapsing the political into
the economic.
The biopolitical state justifies racism which in turn justifies killing
Volha Piotukh, Edinburgh, 6 June 2008, PhD student, School of Politics and International Studies, (POLIS) The University of
Leeds, Supervisors: Dr. Deiniol Jones and Prof. Alice Hills, “Humanitarian Action and the War on Terror: Some Preliminary
Thoughts on a New Biopolitical Nexus” www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/.../Piotukh_Paper.doc DS)
Foucault addresses this question by turning to the concept of racism. For him, it is the emergence of biopower that
inscribes racism in the mechanisms of state. Racism in this context is understood as “a way of
introducing a break into the domain of life that is under power’s control: the break between what
must live and what must die” (Foucault, 2003 p. 254). It is, in essence, a way of “separating out the
groups that exist within a population” (Foucault, 2003 p. 255). Another important function of racism is the
establishment of a positive relation of the type: “The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more”. While it is a familiar
relationship of war: “In order to live, you must destroy your enemies”, Foucault argues that it functions in a new way. He explains:
“The fact that the other dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death
guarantees my safety; the death of the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race (…) is
something that will make life in general healthier (…) and purer” (Foucault, 2003 p. 255). Therefore, it is not a
military, but a biological relationship. In this kind of relationship the enemies who need to be eliminated are threats, either external or
internal, to the population; and racism is the precondition for exercising the right to kill (Foucault, 2003
p. 256). ‘Killing’ in this context does not have to be limited to murder as such, it can be anything from exposing someone to death to
political death, expulsion and so on. Finally, as “[r]acism is bound up with the workings of a State that is obliged to use race, the
elimination of races and the purification of the race, to exercise its sovereign power”, “the most murderous States are also, of
necessity, the most racist” (Foucault, 2003 p. 258).
Torture Bad
Torture violates dignity and cannot be justified
UNITED NATIONS ND (international organization whose stated aims include promoting and facilitating cooperation in
international law, international security, economic development and social progress, press release “International Day in Support of
Victims of Torture” No date, http://www.un.org/en/events/torturevictimsday/)
Torture seeks to annihilate the victim’s personality and denies the inherent dignity of the human
being. The United Nations has condemned torture from the outset as one of the vilest acts perpetrated by
human beings on their fellow human beings. Torture is a crime under international law . According to
all relevant instruments, it is absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstances . This
prohibition forms part of customary international law, which means that it is binding on every member of the
international community, regardless of whether a State has ratified international treaties in which torture is expressly
prohibited. The systematic or widespread practice of torture constitutes a crime against humanity.
There can be no exceptions with torture
Leahy 04 (Patrick, the senior United States Senator from Vermont, in office since 1975. A member of the Democratic Party, He
graduated from Saint Michael's College in 1961 and received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1964. He practiced
as a lawyer until he was elected as State's Attorney of Chittenden County in 1966 and re-elected in 1970. Boston Globe “There is no
justification for torture” June 28,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/28/there_is_no_justification_for_torture/)
Since the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were revealed, evidence
continues to seep out of similar mistreatment of
prisoners in other US military detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Top White
House and Pentagon officials have sought to deny any pattern of illegality in the interrogation and treatment of prisoners in US custody. They insist that
members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban fall outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The reach of the Geneva Conventions is debatable.
What is not debatable is that the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, which the United States signed and ratified, makes no distinction between American citizens, Iraqis, or
anyone else. It unequivocally forbids the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment,
anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. So does US law. So does our military's manual for intelligence
interrogation. Yet we now know that the White House and the Pentagon were actively working to circumvent the law. Guidelines for interrogating
prisoners were applied routinely in multiple locations in ways that were illegal. It is also clear that US officials knew the law was being violated and for
months, possibly years, did virtually nothing about it. I first wrote to the White House, the Pentagon, and the CIA last June about the reported torture of
Afghan prisoners by US interrogators. Two prisoners had died during interrogation. Others described being forced to stand naked in a cold room for
days without interruption, with their arms raised and chained to the ceiling and their swollen ankles shackled. They said they were denied sleep and
forced to wear hoods that cut off the supply of oxygen. My letter, and subsequent letters, were either ignored or received responses which, in
retrospect, bore no resemblance to the facts. Sixteen months later, the investigations of those deaths, ruled homicides, remain incomplete.
Prisoners who are suspected of having killed or attempted to kill Americans do not deserve
comforts. But the use of torture undermines our global efforts against terrorism and is beneath
our nation. There are many victims of this policy. First are the Iraqis, Afghans, and other detainees, some innocent of
any crime who were tortured or subjected to cruel treatment . We now know that many other Iraqis and Afghans
died in US custody, and many of those deaths were never investigated . Second are our own
soldiers, who overwhelmingly perform their duties with honor and courage, and who now have
been unfairly tarnished. And then there is America itself. The damage this administration has caused to our
credibility will take years to repair. The individuals who committed those acts are being punished, as they must be. But what of those who
gave the orders or set the tone or looked the other way? What of the White House and Pentagon lawyers who tried to justify the use of torture? And
what of the president? Last March, referring to the capture of US soldiers by Iraqi forces, President Bush said, "We expect them to be treated
humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoner of theirs that we capture humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war
The law makes no exception for
torture. The torture of criminal suspects flagrantly violates the presumption of innocence on which our criminal jurisprudence is based, and
confessions extracted through torture are notoriously unreliable. Once exceptions are made for torture it is impossible to
draw the line, and more troubling is who would be in charge of drawing it. If torture is justified in
Afghanistan, why is it not justified in China, or Syria, or Argentina, or Miami? If torture is justified
to obtain information from a suspected terrorist, why not from his wife or children? Some argue it is a
criminals." At the same time, the president's lawyer called the Geneva Conventions "obsolete."
new world since the attacks of Sept. 11. To some degree, they are right, which is why we have reacted with tougher laws and better tools to fight this
war. But do
we really want to usher in a new world that justifies inhumane, immoral and cruel
treatment as any means to an end? We must reject the dangerous notion that torture can be
legally justified.
Torture must be denied even in extreme circumstances
Jacoby 05 (Jeff, An Op-Ed columnist and nationally recognized conservative voice, Jacoby was hired from the Boston Herald
in 1987. He briefly practiced law and was a commentator for WBUR-FM. His awards include the 1999 Breindel Prize and the 2004
Thomas Paine Award. Graduate of George Washington University and the Boston University School of Law, both with honor,
Boston Globe “Why not torture terrorists?” March 20,
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/20/why_not_torture_terrorists/)
By ''extreme
circumstances" he meant what is often called the ''ticking-bomb" scenario: A deadly terror
attack is looming, and you can prevent it only by getting the information your prisoner refuses to
divulge. Torture might force him to talk, thereby saving thousands of innocent lives. May he be
tortured? Many Americans would say yes without hesitating . Some would argue that torturing a terrorist is not
nearly as wrong as refusing to do so and thereby allowing another 9/11 to occur. Others would insist that monsters of Mohammed's
ilk deserve no decency. As an indignant reader (one of many) wrote to me after last week's column on the cruel abuse of some US
detainees, ''The terrorists . . . would cut your heart out and stuff it into the throat they would proudly slash open." So why not
torture detainees, if it will produce the information we need? Here's why: First, because torture, as
noted, is unambiguously illegal -- illegal under a covenant the United States ratified, illegal under federal law, and illegal
under protocols of civilization dating back to the Magna Carta. Second, because torture is notoriously unreliable.
Many people will say anything to make the pain stop, while some will refuse to yield no matter what is done to
them. Yes, sometimes torture produces vital information. But it can also produce false leads and desperate fictions. In the tickingbomb case, bad information is every bit as deadly as no information. Third, because torture is never limited to just the guilty. The
case for razors and electric shock rests on the premise that the prisoner is a knowledgeable terrorist like Mohammed or Abu Musab
al-Zarqawi. But most of the inmates in military prisons are nothing of the kind. Commanders in Guantanamo acknowledge that
hundreds of their prisoners pose no danger and have no useful information. How much of the hideous abuse reported to date
involved men who were guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? And fourth, because torture is a
dangerously slippery slope. Electric shocks and beatings are justified if they can prevent another
9/11? But what if the shocks and beating don't produce the needed information? Is it OK to break
a finger? To cut off a hand? To save 3,000 lives, can a terrorist's eyes be gouged out? How about
gouging out his son's eyes? Or raping his daughter in his presence? If that's what it will take to
make him talk, to defuse the ticking bomb, isn't it worth it? No. Torture is never worth it. Some things
we don't do, not because they never work, not because they aren't ''deserved," but because our very right to call
ourselves decent human beings depends in part on our not doing them. Torture is in that category. We
can win our war against the barbarians without becoming barbaric in the process.
Closing Gitmo Solves – Biopower
Guantanamo represents biopolitics
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
To be sure, the inmates of Guantánamo are not in the same situation asthe inmates of the Third
Reich (Agamben, 2005, 4). For the most part, theformer have been captured on the battlefield and are not slated for death in
gaschambers or forced marches. Many have been released. As the Supreme Courthas made clear, detainees have rights
against their captors. But theunderstanding of the meaning of Guantánamo cannot be restricted to theempirical or the literal.
Nor can it be limited to what the law has allowed andrestricted. Following Agamben, Guantánamo must be
understood in its“coherent biopolitical meaning” (Agamben, 1998, 131). What this means is that the
elaboration of power over those deemed unworthy of life must beunderstood as an unfolding of
power that reveals itself with the “anatomo- politics of the human body” and the “¶ regulatory
controls¶ ” of a “¶ biopolitics of the population¶ ” (Foucault, 1990b, 139; italics in original).The long view regarding
the evolution of Guantánamo as a species of biopower that has roots in the classical distinction between ¶ zoe¶ , or bare life, and¶
bios¶ , a life within a political community, seems to us more appropriate than an alternative view that sees Guantánamo as a site of
power and resistance thattugs at, but does not question, the concept of the political. “The ‘body’ isalways already caught in a
deployment of power,” Agamben argues (1998,187), and it is necessary to see how that deployment of power has turned intothe
concept of sovereignty where the Muselmann, and not the political animal,is the focal point. Indeed, to understand
Agamben’s point, it is important to setGuantánamo within the context of the capillary nature of
power, that is, byinvestigating the practice of power relations on and within the “social
body”(Foucault, 1990a, 118). To concentrate on the detainees’ success in chippingaway at the Bush
Administration’s restrictive approach to legal remedies for detainees is to continue to operate
within the “juridico-political discourse”(Foucault, 1990b, 88) that established Guantánamo in the first
place. Power must be examined as something that is “always already there”; we mustrecognize that one
is “never ‘outside’” power (Foucault, 1980, 141), a view notnormally associated with legal liberalism. It is, at the same time,
important to recognize Guantánamo as one link ina biopolitical chain that has brought to light the
effects of biopower onsovereignty. A more detailed exposition of this thought would have to includeAgamben’s
discussion, at the end of ¶ Homo Sacer ¶ , of the politicization of deathin the field of health care ethics (Agamben, 1998, 160-165).
But here let itsuffice to say that the detainees’ debased moral standing, for Agamben, cannot be the result of a failed effort to
establish the proper forum necessary for tryingthose held outside the territory of the United States. Rather, the Muselmänner are
“the site of an experiment in which morality and humanity themselves arecalled into question” (Agamben, 1999, 63). As they move
in an “absoluteindistinction of fact and law” (Agamben, 1998, 185), Agamben understandstheir presence neither as an effect of war
nor as a representation of a rupture inlaw, but in ontological terms, because the state of war or of exception has become the norm
by which subjectivity is formed and reformed. In this veryreal sense, the camp has replaced the city as the paradigmatic structure of
modern times that informs subjectivity’
Guantanamo is equivalent to the Third Reich
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
These detailed, biopolitical regulations over life and death at Abu Ghraibsurpass any legal regulation of disciplinarity, of the
regulation of bodies for thesake of greater productivity. These are willed regulations, staged for effect, anddesigned to diminish
resistance. The prison camps of the war on terror do notrepresent the appearance of the extension of
the legal bureaucratic matrix to thewar on terror or to the application of those who are without a
country. The camps mean that the realm of biopolitics, with its emphasis on the convergenceof “medicine and politics”
(Agamben, 1998, 143), seek to achieve theassimilation of biological existence with political existence
(Foucault, 1990b,142). They are sites for the re-formation of political, cultural, and ethicalunderstandings of what it is to be human in
the twenty-first century. But at their core, they look back to the twentieth century, not to the regulations of the self that Foucault
detailed in his final works. They are, then, the final integration of the tactics, techniques, and strategies
used during the Third Reich
Camps like Guantanamo are the home of biopower and lawlessness, and create
unfair norms
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of
Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political
science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana,
Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences),
and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, “Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower”
http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower
(NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF
DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)
The popular image of Guantánamo detainees is of shackled, hooded men inorange jump suits,
surrounded by barbed wire. The “space of the camp,”Agamben writes, washes up “against a
central non-place, where the¶ Muselmann¶ lives” (Agamben, 1999, 51-52; italics in original). The camp is the
place for bioconvergence, an intersection of image, biopower, and the law. For manyAmericans, these
images have defined what it means to be Muslim (Senguptaand Masood, 2005). The images of Guantánamo have
created, on a global scale,the meaning of the camp as a place of biopolitical convergence. The¶ homo
sacer ¶ is the site upon which “sovereign power is founded”(Agamben, 1998, 142). The sovereign authority that
governs Guantánamo hasthe power over life and death, the power to decide who shall become a¶ zoe¶ andwho
a¶ bios¶ . It is not a lawless entity, but a law-giving entity, even as it hassuspended the law’s power. The force of law remains in
effect “as the power that informs life from the beginning in all its extension, constitution, andintensity” (Esposito, 2008, 81). But other
forces can be discerned that have produced counter-narratives. By creating an archive of the lost voices from thewar on terror, the
press and international organizations have revealed thatGuantánamo is more than a prison; it is a “normproducing” entity (Johns,2005, 615). The prison camps in Cuba have helped frame the understanding
of the war on terror as premised on biological-political rationalities. The ground of that reality is the value of
life itself, measured by the body of the prisoner.
The camp is a site of bare life which securitizes life
(Nick Vaughan-Williams, 2008, Reader in International Security, and Deputy Director of Research in PAIS. Previously
held Lectureships at the University of Exeter and the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Studied Modern History at the University of
Oxford, and then International Relations at the Universities of Warwick (MA) and Aberystwyth (PhD). International Political
Sociology, “Borders, territory, law”
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/reading/poststructuralism/documents/NVW.pdf, DS)
The concept of bare life is a difficult and contestable one in Agamben’s work 29 and it is possible to read it in different ways. There
is a tendency to reduce bare 30 life to zoe� but this suggests that it is something we are all somehow born with 31 rather than a
status that is performatively produced in different locations at differ- 32 ent times. The reading advanced here is to treat bare life as
something that is pro- 33 duced by the sovereign machine rather than something that pre-exists it. On this 34 view, bare life is
neither synonymous with zoe� nor bios but rather a form of life that 35 occupies a zone of indistinction between the two: a form of
life that disrupts the 36 zoe�⁄bios dichotomy with which the relationship between politics and life is usually 37 studied. Agamben
fuses Schmitt’s approach to sovereignty as the decision on the 38 exception with Benjamin’s
notion of the permanence of the state of exceptional- 39 ism, and Jean-Luc Nancy’s understanding of the ban.
In summary, bare life is a 40 form of life that is amenable to the sway of sovereign power because it is
banned 41 from the realm of law and politics: an abandonment that takes place whenever 42 and
wherever the law is suspended. The use of the concept of the ban is signifi- 43 cant here: bare life is not simply excluded
from this realm but rather maintained 44 in what Agamben calls an ‘‘inclusive exclusion.’’ If someone is banned from a 45
community s⁄he continues to have a relationship with that community: indeed it 46 is precisely because of the ban that they are still
nevertheless linked to that com- 47 munity. Sovereign power produces bare life as a banned form of life because its 48 undecidable
juridical–political status allows for the routinization of exceptional 49 practices such as detainment without trial, torture, and even
execution. 50 In the conclusion to Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998), Agamben 51 claims that any attempt to reconceptualize the nomos of the West must take into 52 account the fact that ‘‘we no longer know anything of the classical distinction
53 between zoe� and bios, between private life and political existence, between man as 54 a simple living being at home in the
house and man’s political existence in the 55 city’’ (Agamben 1998:187). On the one hand, the production of bare life in
zones of indistinction upon which sovereign power depends is perhaps most visi- 2 ble in camps
designated for that purpose. On the other hand, Agamben also 3 points to the way in which the production of zones of
indistinction, where excep- 4 tional activities become the rule and bare life is subject only to the whims of sov- 5 ereign power, is
more and more widespread or generalized in world politics. 6 Under biopolitical conditions in which ‘‘the
paradigm of security has become 7 the normal technique of government,’’ Agamben argues that
the blurring of the 8 citizen, and the bare life of homo sacer is not something that is localized or 9
encumbered by traditional limits: ‘‘Living in the state of exception that has now 10 become the rule
has...meant this: our private body has now become indistin- 11 guishable from our body politic’’
(Agamben 2000:39). On the contrary, as Minca 12 has put it, there has been a ‘‘normalization of a series of geographies of excep13 tionalism in Western societies’’ throughout everyday life (Minca 2006:388). Con- 14 sequently, an Agambenian account of the
activities of sovereign power 15 predicated upon the production of bare life offers provocative insights for any 16 attempt to re-think
the relation between borders, territory and law, and develop 17 alternative imaginaries to the inside ⁄ outside model.
The politics of the war on terror blur the distinction between land and law and
legitimize biopolitics
(Nick Vaughan-Williams, 2008, Reader in International Security, and Deputy Director of Research in PAIS. Previously
held Lectureships at the University of Exeter and the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Studied Modern History at the University of
Oxford, and then International Relations at the Universities of Warwick (MA) and Aberystwyth (PhD). International Political
Sociology, “Borders, territory, law”
http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/reading/poststructuralism/documents/NVW.pdf, DS)
Derek Gregory has pointed to the way in which the War on Terror unleashed in 24 the wake of the attacks on the World Trade
Centre and Pentagon on 11 Septem- 25 ber 2001 has mobilized an array of legal formularies (Gregory 2006). Highlight- 26 ing the
US’ subsequent portrayal of other states, including Afghanistan, Cuba, 27 Iran, Iraq, as threats to its national security, Gregory
argues that ‘‘most of the 28 emergencies and ‘‘exceptional measures’’ that have punctuated Bush’s
presidency 29 fold the national into the transnational’’ (Gregory 2006:407; emphasis added). 30 Such a
‘‘folding’’ is reminiscent of the topology of the Mo b
̈ ius strip that Agamben 31 draws upon in order
to reorient his conception of the way in which sovereign 32 power operates across a global
biopolitical terrain. Moreover, this spatial imagi- 33 nary, though not free of difficulties as Bigo (2007) has pointed out, seems
partic- 34 ularly apposite for thinking about how the UN’s legal argumentation in relation 35 to the situation of detainees at
Guanta ́namo Bay indicates the complexity of the 36 contemporary relation between borders,
territory, and law. The arguments 37 deployed by the UN illustrate how the War on Terror has
perhaps intensified the 38 folding to which Gregory refers, which certainly complicates a
straightforward 39 inside ⁄ outside way of mapping the relation between borders, territory, and law.
40 Further still, such folding is not merely conceptual but above all lived, for exam- 41 ple through the bodies and experiences of
those detained at the US naval base in 42 Cuba. In contrast to the ideal of the modern sovereign subject, autonomous or 43
‘‘bordered’’ before the law like the state of which it is a citizen, the detainees’ sta- 44 tus is fundamentally indistinct and it is precisely
the production of this fuzziness 45 that, as Agamben has demonstrated, the logic of sovereign power depends upon. 46 However,
as Gregory emphasizes, there is also a sense in which the inside⁄out- 47 side imaginary has always been something of a fiction and
that folding of the 48 kind illustrated in the example of Guanta ́namo is not necessarily something 49 ‘‘new’’ at all: ‘‘American
attempts to decouple law and location have a much 50 longer history and do not derive uniquely from the global assertion of military
51 force’’ (Gregory 2006:407). Indeed, pointing to the regulation of transnational 52 economic activities and the extension of rights to
citizens of the US overseas, 53 there is a long history of a disaggregation of territorial limits and limits in law 54 (Gregory 2006:407).
Nevertheless, whilst we are not necessarily witnessing either 55 the erasure of the logic of inside⁄outside or an entirely new
departure in how this dichotomy is being played out, it is possible to identify ways in which, as Bali- bar puts it, borders are
‘‘vacillating’’ in contemporary political life: ‘‘no longer at the border, an institutionalized site that could be materialized on the ground
and inscribed on the map’’ (Balibar 1998:217–218). What this demands, perhaps especially in the context of
the War on Terror, is an incessant identification and perpetual deconstruction of diverse and
multiple logics and practices of inside ⁄ outside in order to highlight for interrogation what is
enabled, legitimized, and often concealed by border politics.
AT: Closing Gitmo Doesn’t Solve
Closing the Guantanamo facility still solves for the dehumanization of the
detainees even if we lose that the closure does not end the overall ontological
phenomenon
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International
University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly
articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international
law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law,
He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the
17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev.
163 – GUANTÁNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN
EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57-Wayne-L-Rev-163-GuantanamoUnderstanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-of-American-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray
When we talk about erasure, it is intrinsically linked to the temporal aspect of the phenomenological evolution of time and space in
that erasure is a process that attains its meaning through permanency. While I appreciate Professor Ahmad’s invocation of human
erasure in the context of Guantánamo for providing a much needed interpretive gloss, I remain unsure whether “erasure”
necessarily can be associated with dehumanization at Guantánamo. While the very process of dehumanization continued unabated
for the intensity of state violence on subjugated prisoners’ unquestioned and attempted destruction of individuals’ physical
constructs perhaps unparalleled in post-modernity, the damage might only be described in temporary terms. Despite the
harshest of conditions imposed on the detainees, human resilience surely has won against
dehumanization attempts to eventually overcome extra-ordinary odds to retain their old
constructs. For the construct might get erased temporarily, but if the temporal length of the dehumanization
process is short, it must retain its pristine construct when the prior conditions are restored. In this context,
the process of restoration comes in various forms, such as eventual release or relaxation of the
harshest of conditions. Therefore, I look at this dehumanization as a temporary erasure as I construe the process as a
suspension. I do this with conviction borne out of hope, because I want to end with hope—hope for humanity. Erasure is giving up
.Erasure is painting a dark picture for humanity. But temporary erasure brings in the harbinger of aspiration that wrongs will be
righted, that this very phenomenon of Guantánamo will be rehabilitated.
AT: Gitmo Not Bad
Guantanamo Not bad
AlterNet, 2009 (Alternet, “Top 5 Myths About Closing Guantanamo”, AlterNet, 1/27/09,
http://www.alternet.org/story/122895/top_5_myths_about_closing_guantanamo?page=0%2C0)
MYTH #1 -- GUANTANAMO IS A GREAT PLACE TO BE: Conservatives often try to argue that life at
Guantanamo is just fine. Reacting to Obama's executive order, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH)
said that detainees there receive "more comforts than a lot of Americans get." In December, Vice
President Cheney argued that Guantanamo "has been very well run." Neither of these claims are
true. The Washington Post recently revealed that the top Bush administration official in charge of
deciding whether to prosecute detainees concluded that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured by
the U.S. military at Guantanamo. The detention center was so poorly run that Obama
administration officials are now finding out that Bush officials never kept comprehensive case
files on many detainees.
I-Law Advantage
Gitmo Internal
Breaks international law
DeGarmo 11 (Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville located across the river
from St. Louis Missouri. I received my PhD in international relations with a specialty in security from the University of Michigan - Ann
Arbor. I am currently the chair of the Department of Political Science at SIUE and I am the coordinator of the Peace and
International Studies minor. I love to travel and just returned from a 10 day trip to the West Bank Palestine, “For U.S. Policy, Torture
is Never Acceptable” July 22, http://www.policymic.com/articles/1648/for-u-s-policy-torture-is-never-acceptable)
The use of torture to gain intelligence is never acceptable. Torture is prohibited under domestic
laws of most countries in the international system. It is also prohibited under international law.
Torture is considered a human rights violation according to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and under the United Nations Convention Against
Torture. There is no scientific evidence to support claims that torture is an effective interrogation
tool. Cheney authorized the use of torture (including waterboarding) as a way to gain intelligence. He readily admits authorizing these techniques in
interviews with various news organizations, recognizing full well that the use of torture violates the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations
Convention on Torture — documents that the U.S. is a party to. Cheney was not alone in his advocacy of the use of torture. As Professor of Law
Majorie Cohn says, “Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also participated in the highest level of decision-making that sanctioned the
Rumsfeld authorized the Defense
Department to “set up a clandestine team of special forces to snatch and/or assassinate anyone
considered a 'high value' Al-Qaeda operative anywhere in the world.” Willful killing such as that described in SAP
extrajudicial execution of high valued operatives.” In his Special Access Program (SAP),
is a direct breach of the Geneva Conventions, which characterizes willful killing as a war crime. Rumsfeld also sanctioned the use of torture, as well as
cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of captives to gain what he deemed “important intelligence.” Use of dogs, removal of clothing, hooding, stress
positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, waterboarding, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, use of physical coercion, and
sexual humiliation were common methods to extract information from prisoners. The
law is clear. Torture is illegal under
international law. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states that all manner of murder, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture are prohibited
at any time or place whatsoever. The United Nations Convention on Torture prohibits the use of torture for obtaining information or a confession or as a
source of punishment for any act.
Gitmo Internal – Lease
The lease itself is in violation with international law, only doing the plan fully
complies with international law
Danwall 4 (Hanna Danwall, faculty of law in public international law at the University of Lund. “Guantanamo Bay, a legal “black
hole”?” University of Lund, Spring 2004,
http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1556904&fileOId=1564143)
Cuba claims that the United States holds Guantanamo Bay illegally and while doing so they represent a permanent
threat to Cuba’s sovereignty. Cuba also claims that the lease lacks legal existence and judicial validity. 39 Even
if the lease should be considered to be valid, Cuba would have the right to cancel the lease since
it is not a ”real” lease40, as a “real” lease is temporal to its nature, which the lease of Guantanamo
Bay clearly is not. According to Cuba it is obvious that the United States never intends to terminate the lease and this lack of
intention gives Cuba the right to immediately cancel the lease.41 Another factor that Cuba claims give them the right to cancel the
lease is the fact that the United States is violating the purpose stated in the Treaty of 1934. The purpose, as
stated in the treaty is “to fortify the relations of friendship between the two countries”. 42 According to
international law the lessee must follow the contract and use the leased territory according to the
purpose stated in the contract, since the consent to the agreement is based on that purpose. Not to do so would
be a violation to the in international law accepted Clausula rebus sic stantibus. Clausula rebus sic stantibus refers to
the silent or explicit reservation in an agreement, by which the continued validity of the agreements presupposes that the
circumstances, which prevailed at the conclusion of the agreement, do not considerably change. The foundation for the
contract was to strengthen the friendship between the two peoples. That foundation has according to Cuba
disappeared as the naval base has become an instrument of aggression and consequently does not
represent friendship. As a result, the purpose of the base has been substantially altered and according to the
Clausula rebus sic stantibus the agreement is not valid anymore. 43 On July 26 1962, Fidel Castro made a policy
statement concerning Guantanamo Bay where he declared that: Cuba has not wavered nor will it ever waver in its determination to
recover the land for its people, exercising its sovereignty according to international legal resources at the proper time. Caimanera44
is Cuban. As Cuban as the mothers who have wept over the crimes committed there.45 In 1961 Cuba stopped cashing in
the annual fee that they, according to article I of the Supplementary Agreement of 190346, receives from the United
States. This was done on the ground that the United States should not retain possession of
Guantanamo Bay.47 In 1964 Cuba ceased to supply water to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, forcing the United States to
install water purification plants.48
US in violation of International Law
HRW 2011(Human Rights Watch, international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on
human right; “US: Prolonged Indefinite Detention Violates International Law”; 1-24-11; http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/24/usprolonged-indefinite-detention-violates-international-law)
The prolonged indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay violates
US obligations under international law . The Bush administration claimed unfettered power to detain persons on the
basis of the president's role as commander-in-chief, which the Supreme Court rejected in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush. The
Obama administration has sought to justify indefinite detention without trial under authority of the
Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted in 2001, which permits the president to use all necessary and appropriate
force against al Qaeda and other organizations and individuals involved in the 9/11 attacks. The administration has also stated that
its detention policies are "informed by principles of the laws of war." The laws of war provide for the detention of
prisoners-of-war and civilians who pose an imperative security risk during international armed
conflicts - that is, conflicts between states. Guantanamo detainees apprehended during the international armed conflict in
Afghanistan that began in 2001 should have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and repatriated to
Afghanistan after the Karzai government was created in 2002, ending the inter-state conflict, or prosecuted for war crimes. Also
applicable during international armed conflicts is international human rights law, but the laws of war may take precedence as the
more specific law (lex specialis). During non-international armed conflicts, such as the current civil war in
Afghanistan or other fighting between states and non-state armed groups, persons who take up
arms or are otherwise involved in rebel activity may be detained and prosecuted in accordance
with domestic laws. Such individuals are entitled to due process rights provided by international
human rights law, which allows for some reductions in protections during declared public emergencies. Although the
Obama administration has abandoned the phrase "global war on terror," it continues to assert the authority to
pick up and detain anyone anywhere in the world in accordance with the laws of war. However, individuals apprehended
in situations not amounting to armed conflict , that is, outside a traditional battlefield, do not fall within
the realm of the laws of war. They instead must be detained and prosecuted according to domestic law
and international human rights la
Gitmo close solves International Law
Jamail 2012 (Dahr Jamail, writer and news producer for Al Jazeera English, correspondent for the War on Terror;
“Guantanamo: A legacy of shame”; 11-22-12; Al Jazeera;
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/11/2012112281516833917 )
"People in the US should care deeply about the fact that the US government is refusing to comply
with international law," Prasow said. "It has implications for the treatment of everyone around the
world. What will this government do when it won't comply with basic legal requirements?" Like Nevin
and Wright, Prasow points out how the treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is also a basic
national security concern. "When the US treats people as if they are not human, there are very real
implications on how the rest of the world perceives the US," she added. Nevertheless, Prasow is not
holding her breath that anyone in the US is going to be prosecuted for the blatant violations of
international law that have occurred at Guantanamo. But she felt there are things that the Obama
administration should indeed do. "The president could create a bi-partisan commission to
investigate the extent of what has happened and expose the Human Rights violations. Only by that
will people see the extent of what has happened and why it is so important that we never go back
to that again," she said. "When former Bush administration officials travel around the world they
should be investigated and prosecuted under those countries domestic laws." But how likely is that
to happen? "The greatest tragedy of the Obama administration is that they continue to use the
state secrets privilege," Prasow said. "These ongoing lawsuits have been dismissed because of the
state secrets privilege, and there's no justification for that." She thinks the reality is that it is
impossible for a former detainee, who is entitled to compensation under international law, to be
awarded their rightful compensation in the US primarily because of US law and the state secrets
privilege the Obama administration continues to exercise. According to Prasow, the Obama
administration, under international law, is required to afford people redress for ill-treatment. "But
that has not been afforded them," she added. "And it should." Prasow, like Judge Gibbons, said
there is a very simple legal method that could and should be used to close Guantanamo. "You can
prosecute these people in US federal courts, and then release the others who are not prosecuted ,"
she said. "The Obama administration could do this. That is precisely how you close Guantanamo,
by following the law."
Guantanamo must close solve international law
Eviatar 2013 (Daphne Eviatar, Senior Counsel in Human Rights First’s Law and Security Program; “ Obama can close
Guantanamo”; 5-1-13; Reuters; http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2013/05/01/obama-can-close-guantanamo/)
There’s no question that the situation at Guantanamo Bay has grown desperate and must be
addressed quickly. This week the military confirmed that 100 of the 166 men there are on hunger
strike – officially starving themselves to death. Twenty-one are being force-fed – strapped to a chair with a tube snaked
up their nose and pumping Ensure into their stomachs - a violation of medical ethical guidelines, according to the American Medical
Association, the International Committee for the Red Cross and the World Medical Association. Meanwhile, the United
Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, recently called the continued operation
of the Guantanamo prison a “clear breach of international law .” The prison camp is also, as Obama
acknowledged on Tuesday, costly for U.S. taxpayers. The U.S. government pays about $800,000 per detainee per
year to keep the 166 men imprisoned at Guantanamo. In contrast, the secure imprisonment of a criminal convicted in a U.S. federal
court costs about $30,000. Obama was right when he said on Tuesday that the situation at Guantanamo is not
sustainable. “The notion that we’re going to continue to keep over a hundred individuals in a no-man’s-land in perpetuity,” he
said, “even at a time when we’ve wound down the war in Iraq, we’re winding down the war in Afghanistan, we’re having success
defeating al Qaeda core, we’ve kept the pressure up on all these transnational terrorist networks, when we’ve transferred detention
authority in Afghanistan - the idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried - that is
contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests and it needs to stop.” The
president also needs to stop blaming
Congress for his failure to do what is within his power: shuttering the prison. Some lawmakers have
certainly made it difficult for him to make good on his pledge to close the detention center, but as he acknowledged on Tuesday,
there are steps he can take now to move toward that goal.
Gitmo Internal – War
Another reason Guantanamo is about to be illegal – ending combat operations in
Afghanistan
HRF 12 (Human Rights First, December 2012, independent advocacy and action organization that challenges America to live up
to its ideals, How to close Guantanamo, Online, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf, page 1, accessed 7/27/13) PE
The imperative to close Guantanamo has increased as¶ the United States prepares for the end of
major combat¶ operations in Afghanistan—the conflict in which most of¶ the Guantanamo detainees were captured a
decade or¶ more ago. The United States is already transitioning¶ detention operations in Afghanistan to the Afghans. By¶ closing
Guantanamo, the Obama Administration will¶ align its policy objectives with a forward-looking post-war¶ counterterrorism strategy
that does not depend on¶ maintaining active military detention facilities.¶ Moreover, Guantanamo detainees are being held
under¶ the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which ¶ provides detention authority only
while hostilities are¶ ongoing. As major combat operations in Afghanistan¶ come to an end and the secretary of defense
and other¶ national security officials talk of the “strategic defeat” of ¶ core al Qaeda, courts are likely to take a renewed¶
interest in whether there remains authority to hold¶ Guantanamo detainees. Closing Guantanamo
will help¶ to place counterterrorism policies on a more stable and¶ durable legal footing.
Gitmo Internal – UN
The UN wants Guantanamo Bay closed down to comply with international law
Dowdle 13 (Patrick Dowdle is a contributor to the Pace International Law Review, a forum part of the Pace University School
of Law. “Guantanamo Bay: Open for Business” Apr 6th, 2013 http://pilr.blogs.law.pace.edu/2013/04/06/guantanamo-bay-open-forbusiness/)
Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, issued a statement denouncing the detention of the 86
men in Guantanamo Bay who have been cleared for release. Pillay claims that the United States is exercising, “the most
flagrant breach of individual rights” and “a clear breach of international law.” Pillay also requested that human rights
experts be allowed to meet with the 86 detainees. She stated, “I am deeply disappointed that the US government
has not been able to close Guantanamo Bay [prison]… It severely undermines the United States
stance…when addressing human rights violations elsewhere.” Reports indicate that only six detainees at Gitmo are facing trial.
More than half of the prisoners have been cleared for release, and some of the prisoners have been in Gitmo for over a decade.
President Obama promised to close the prison soon into his first term, but Congress passed a law prohibiting the transfer of Gitmo
detainees to the United States and requiring security guarantees before they can be transferred anywhere else. Congress has cited
security concerns as a major reason: “Yemeni citizens-who make up the vast majority of those in a state of limbo-cannot return
home.” The hunger strike, that began two months ago at Gitmo, has snowballed and is up to at least forty men. Eleven
of these protesters have lost so much weight that they are being force-fed liquid nutrients through feeding tubes.
Pillay has shown sympathy for the detainees, saying, “It is scarcely surprising that people’s frustrations boil over and
they resort to such desperate measures.” What influence will the UN’s statements have on the U.S. as it is faced with decisions
related to the operation of Gitmo? Do you think Congress is correct for taking such precautions when dealing with these prisoners,
or is the United States simply violating international law through this arbitrary detention?
The UN supports the plan
UN 9 (UN News Centre. “Ban welcomes US decision to close Guantánamo Bay detention centre” 23
January 2009, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29644&Cr=united+states&Cr1=Human+rights#.Ue1ueI1OSSo
Secretary-General Ban
Ki-moon today welcomed the decision by United States President Barack Obama to begin
the process of closing the detention facility in Guantánamo Bay. Echoing a statement issued yesterday by UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, Mr. Ban also hailed the new US leader’s orders to review detention policies and
introduce measures to ensure lawful interrogations, as well as the Administration’s ban on certain types of interrogation. “The
United Nations has previously called for the closure of the Guantánamo Bay detention facility, and is encouraged that
President Obama has given the highest priority to ensuring respect for fundamental rights ,” Mr. Ban’s
spokesperson said in a statement. Mr. Ban also said he looks forward to working with all UN Member States to tackle terrorism
“while fully respecting international human rights obligations.” Also welcoming yesterday’s signing of the executive orders by Mr.
Obama, two UN independent human rights experts stressed that the US Government should fully
respect all human rights obligations, including the prohibition of torture and the non-refoulement principle that forbids
removing people to countries where they could be tortured. Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of
judges and lawyers, and Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment, stressed that they are prepared to lend their full support to settling outstanding issues, especially
those in relation to closing the Guantánamo facilities.
UN chief advocates the closure of Gitmo for US compliance with international law
Reuters 13 (Stephanie Nebehay of Reuters. “UN says US violating international law, calls for closure of Guantanamo”,
Reuters, April 5th, 2013, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17617277-un-says-us-violating-international-law-callsfor-closure-of-guantanamo?lite)
The UN human rights chief called on the United States on Friday to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison
camp, saying the indefinite imprisonment of many detainees without charge or trial violated
international law. Navi Pillay said the hunger strike being staged by some inmates at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval
Base in southeastern Cuba was a "desperate act" but "scarcely surprising." "We must be clear about this: The United States is in
clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to
uphold," the UN high commissioner for human rights said in a statement. About half of the 166 detainees there have been cleared
for transfer either to home countries or third countries for resettlement, Pillay said. "As a first step, those who have been
cleared for release must be released," she said. "Others reportedly have been designated for further indefinite
detention. Some of them have been festering in this detention center for more than a decade," she said. Of the 166
detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes. Forty inmates are currently staging a
hunger strike to protest against their indefinite detention, according to a U.S. military spokesman at Guantanamo. Some have lost so
much weight that they are being force-fed liquid nutrients.
Closure Key
Guantanamo Bay breaks international treaties and violates UN human rights –
Action key
Diplomacist 13 (The Diplomacist is an online journal published by the Cornell International Affairs Review. “The Case to
Close Guantanamo”, April 18, 2013, http://www.ciartest.diplomacist.org/?p=3360)
During his 2008 Presidential Campaign, then-Presidential hopeful Barack Obama assured the American public that
the American military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba would be shut down within the first year of
his presidency. On January 22, 2009, shortly after taking office, Obama signed an executive order stating that authorized the
use of an alternative detention facility in Illinois, and mandated “the closure of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.”
Four years later, the excessive brutality of the American military at Guantanamo continues. Opened up in
2002, the base holds a variety of prisoners, largely accused of crimes related to terrorism, captured in the aftermath of the Bush
administration’s exuberant and trigger-happy push to eliminate global terrorism. An independent task force published a report earlier
this week made it clear that “it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture.” The task force classified the
US prison facility as “abhorrent and intolerable,” and—as several human rights activists have in the past—implored President
Obama to shut down the controversial prison. Earlier this week, The New York Times published an op-ed narrated by a
Guantanamo prisoner on hunger strike. Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel and 51 other prisoners at the facility have been on a hunger
strike. This is out of a mere 166 men officially held at Guantanamo. Hasan Moqbel claims he has “been detained at Guantanamo for
11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial.” The entire process involved
in the establishment and functioning of the facility at Guantanamo Bay is appalling. Bush’s Patriot Act, its consequent drive
to imprison any remotely suspicious citizens, and the glaring contraventions of international treaties
is outrageous. For an administration that so aggressively pushes its agenda of freedom, equality and fairness on the world, the
American government has forever remained oddly hypocritical with regards to Guantanamo Bay. The prison explicitly
violates the UN Declaration on Human Rights by denying hearings and torturing prisoners. The
illegality of detentions is ironic, given the strong civil liberties and rule of law in the United States. The legal status of the prisoners is
that of “illegal enemy combatants,” ambiguously placing them in a state of limbo between criminal and prisoner of war. Simply put,
Guantanamo represents an America of the past: cornered, intimidated and trigger-happy in the aftermath of the brutal 9/11 attacks.
President Obama sold himself to Americans as a harbinger of change and hope, representing a quantum leap from the dark days
of the Bush regime. He has shown he can talk the talk. It’s about time he walk the walk.
Closing Guantanamo Bay allows the US to comply with international law
Bowcott 13 (Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent for The Guardian. “Guantánamo Bay force feeding inhuman and
degrading, says UN” The Guardian, 2 May 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/02/guantanamo-bay-force-feedinginhuman-un)
Force feeding hunger strikers in Guantánamo Bay is against international medical standards and
should be stopped, according to a group of senior UN officials. The human rights experts also warned that indefinite
detention of suspects at the US prison camp in Cuba constituted "cruel, inhuman, and degrading
treatment" and should end, in a statement released through the UN's office of the high commissioner for human
rights. The declaration has been published in response to the hunger strike that started in February and
involves up to 100 detainees. At least 21 are being forcibly fed. The statement says: "According to the World Medical
Assembly's Declaration of Malta, in cases involving people on hunger strikes, the duty of medical personnel to act ethically and the
principle of respect for individuals' autonomy, among other principles, must be respected. "Under these principles, it is
unjustifiable to engage in forced feeding of individuals contrary to their informed and voluntary refusal of such a
measure. Moreover, hunger strikers should be protected from all forms of coercion , even more so when
this is done through force and in some cases through physical violence. "Healthcare personnel may not apply undue pressure of
any sort on individuals who have opted for the extreme recourse of a hunger strike. Nor is it acceptable to use threats of forced
feeding or other types of physical or psychological coercion against individuals who have voluntarily decided to go on a hunger
strike." The statement is signed by El Hadji Malick Sow, chair of the UN working group on arbitrary detention; Juan E Méndez, UN
special rapporteur on torture; Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights, and Anand
Grover, UN special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental
health. It is supported by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The experts pointed out that: "The Guantánamo
detainees' lack of legal protection and the resulting anguish caused by the uncertainty regarding their future
has led them to take the extreme step of a hunger strike to demand a real change to their situation." Their continuing
detention was "a flagrant violation of international human rights law and in itself constitutes a
form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment". The Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, said: "We
have received specific information regarding the severe and prolonged physiological and psychological damage caused by the
detainees' high degree of uncertainty over basic aspects of their lives, such as not knowing whether they will be tried or whether
they will be released and when; or whether they will see their family members again." Emmerson drew attention to the fact that the
US government had admitted there were at least 86 prisoners who had been cleared for transfer. "In
other words," he noted, "all relevant security-related government agencies or authorities have expressly certified that those
detainees do not represent a threat to US security." The UN experts called on the US to either charge or release the
detainees. Washington should "adopt all legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other types of
measures necessary to prosecute, with full respect for the right to due process, the individuals
being held at Guantánamo naval base or, where appropriate, to provide for their immediate release or transfer to a third
country, in accordance with international law."
Impact – Genocide
International law discredits warmongers, dis-incentivizing future conflict and
genocide
Akhavan ’01 (Payam, Professor of Human Rights at McGill University, “Beyond Impunity: Can International Criminal Justice
Prevent Future Atrocities?” American Society of International Law, January, http://www.asil.org/ajil/recon2.pdf)
Contrary to the simplistic myths of primordial “tribal” hatred, the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda
were not expressions of spontaneous blood lust or inevitable historical cataclysms. Both conflicts resulted from the
deliberate incitement of ethnic hatred and violence by which ruthless demagogues and warlords
elevated themselves to positions of absolute power. At a volatile transition stage, the calculated
manipulation of fears and tensions unleashed a self-perpetuating spiral of violence in which
thousands of citizens became the unwitting instruments of unscrupulous political elites questing
after supremacy. Against such a backdrop, the removal of leaders with criminal dispositions and a vested
interest in conflict makes a positive contribution to post-conflict peace building. In concert with other
policy measures, resort to international criminal tribunals can play a significant role in discrediting
and containing destabilizing political forces. Stigmatizing delinquent leaders through indictment,
as well as apprehension and prosecution, undermines their influence. Even if wartime leaders still
enjoy popular support among an indoctrinated public at home, exclusion from the international
sphere can significantly impede their long-term exercise of power. Failure to deliver on promises of economic
growth and prosperity, together with the humiliation of pariah status in an interdependent world community, eventually exacts a cost
on such leaders’ influence and authority. Moreover, political climates and fortunes change, and the seemingly invincible leaders of
today often become the fugitives of tomorrow. Whether their downfall comes through political overthrow or
military defeat, the vigilance of international criminal justice will ensure that their crimes do not
fall into oblivion, undermining the prospect of an easy escape or future political rehabilitation. A
postconflict culture of justice also makes moral credibility a valuable political asset for victim
groups, rendering vengeance less tempting and more costly. Of course, the preventive effects of international
criminal justice can extend beyond post-conflict peace building in directly affected countries. The prosecution and related
political demise of such leaders sends a message that the cost of ethnic hatred and violence as
an instrument of power outweighs its benefits. Precedents of accountability, however selective and limited,
contribute to the transformation of a culture of impunity that has hitherto implied the political acceptability of massive human rights
abuses.
Impact – Laundry List
International law solves for laundry list of impacts
United Nations ’08 (“Understanding International Law,” United Nations Treaty Collection,
http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2008/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf)
WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? Without it, there could be chaos. International law
sets up a framework based on States as the principal actors in the international legal system, and it defines their legal
responsibilities in their conduct with each other, and, within State boundaries, with their treatment of individuals. Its domain
encompasses human rights, disarmament, international crime, refugees, migration, problems of
nationality, the treatment of prisoners, the use of force, and the conduct of war, among others. It
also regulates the global commons, such as the environment, sustainable development,
international waters, outer space, global communications and world trade. WITH SO MUCH CONFLICT
IN THE WORLD, HOW CAN THIS REALLY WORK? International law does work, at times invisibly and yet successfully. World
trade and the global economy depend on it, as it regulates the activities required to conduct
business across borders, such as financial transactions and transportation of goods. There are
treaties for roads, highways, railroads, civil aviation, bodies of water and access to shipping for States that are landlocked. And as
new needs arise, whether to prevent or punish terrorist acts or to regulate e-commerce, new treaties are being developed. DOES
INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW IMPINGE ON A NATION’S SOVEREIGNTY? To become party to a
treaty, a State must express, through a concrete act, its willingness to undertake the legal rights and obligations
contained in the treaty – it must “consent to be bound” by the treaty. It can do this in various ways, defined by the terms
of the relevant treaty.
Customary international law also provides for set of principles, protects laundry
list
Weeramantry et al, ’05 (Judge Christopher, former vice president of the International Court of Justice, “International
Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson,” The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy, July, http://lcnp.org/global/Law_and_Peace.pdf)
Customary international law and general principles of law draw on all the cultures of the world to generate concepts, principles and
rules to govern new situations as they arise. International law draws upon this vast reservoir for humanity-
protecting and future-regarding principles like trusteeship of the earth's resources, conservation,
protection of the environment and of health and welfare, duties to the community of nations, and
obligations erga omnes (towards all people). When the Nuclear Weapons Case 7 was heard before the
International Court of Justice in 1995, one of the arguments made by the nuclear powers was that there was no
treaty provision expressly prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons. This illustrates the common
fallacy that international law is only treaty law . It loses sight of the fact that apart from treaty law there is a
vast range of principles which prohibit such destructive weapons –principles against genocide,
principles against the killing of civilian populations, principles against the use of weapons that are cruel and
inflict severe suffering and hardship, environmental principles protecting the rights of future
generations, and so forth.
International law solves nuclear war, environmental degradation, and economic
decline
Mullerson 89 (R. A., Head of the Department of International Law – Institute of State and Law of the Academy of Sciences of
the USSR, The American Journal of International Law, 83 A.J.I.L. 494, July)
In spite of different class approaches to social problems and different schools of thought, there is
only one worldwide science of international law. New global problems challenging humanity -- the
threat of nuclear holocaust, environmental crises, economic difficulties of the “Third World” -- can
be solved only by all states acting together, by the common efforts of all nations. In the
contemporary world, interests and values common to all mankind must prevail over the interests of
single nations, parties or social classes. Moreover, I think that nowadays values and interests
common to all mankind cannot be contrary to the interests of individual states. Avoidance of nuclear
holocaust, disarmament, the resolution of environmental problems and mutually beneficial
cooperation between nations in all fields of human activity are in the interest of all. Too often, when
statesmen or politicians speak of the national interest and justify their actions by the notion of national
interest, they are not talking about genuine national interest but, rather, about the self-interest of certain
influential groups.
Impact – Nuclear War
International law key to current protections against nuclear war
Weeramantry et al, ’05 (Judge Christopher, former vice president of the International Court of Justice, “International
Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson,” The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy, July, http://lcnp.org/global/Law_and_Peace.pdf)
The International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons: Unlike the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals, the
International Court of Justice, often called the World Court, resolves disputes among states. The World Court has another function:
it provides advisory opinions on legal questions posed by UN bodies. In a creative use of this function, in the early 1990s the
World Health Organization and the UN General Assembly asked the court for its advice on the
legality of use and threatened use of nuclear weapons. Developing countries had condemned
nuclear weapons for decades in resolutions in the General Assembly, but the nuclear-armed
countries had voted against and ignored the resolutions. So taking a suggestion from civil society
groups led by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Association of Lawyers Against
Nuclear Arms and the International Peace Bureau (a network of peace groups), non-nuclear countries turned
to
the World Court. Civil society - some 700 groups globally - lobbied in New York and Geneva and in
capitals around the world for the adoption of the requests for the court's opinion by the General
Assembly and the World Health Organization. Then civil society assisted governments in preparing
their presentations to the Court. Two weeks of dramatic hearings were heard before the Court in The Hague in
November 1995. 11 It took the Court almost a year to issue its opinion . By and large, it was a victory for
the prodisarmament forces. The Court held that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally
contrary to international law prohibiting the infliction of indiscriminate harm, unnecessary
suffering and disproportionate damage to the environment . (In separate opinions, Judge Weeramantry and two
other judges went further and said that threat or use in all circumstances is illegal). Also, and unexpectedly, the Court,
interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international instruments, held
unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion
negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. While the opinion has not served to
instantaneously change the entrenched policies of the nuclear-armed states, it has become a central part of advocacy
for reduction and elimination of nuclear arsenals by states in the United Nations and meetings to review the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and by civil society groups worldwide.
International law prevents cross-cultural conflicts, solves extinction from nuclear
war
Weeramantry et al, ’05 (Judge Christopher, former vice president of the International Court of Justice, “International
Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson,” The Lawyer’s Committee on Nuclear Policy, July, http://lcnp.org/global/Law_and_Peace.pdf)
International law is an essential tool for the abolition of war. War has been a part of the human
condition for thousands of years, but its abolition is now a necessity. With weapons of mass
destruction becoming ever more readily available to state and non-state actors, the threat to a peaceful
world being dragged into catastrophic conflict is so great that civilization itself is in peril.
Misunderstanding and cross cultural ignorance are among the root causes of war. While global forces
demolish geographical barriers and move the world toward a unified economy, clashes among cultures can have damaging impact
on peace. International law draws upon the principles of peace expressed by great peacemakers and embodied
in ancient writings, religions, and disciplines, and places them in the social and political context of today to
dissipate the clouds of prejudice, ignorance and vested interests that stand in the way of world
peace and harmony.
Impact – Peace
International Law promotes relations between states
Cutler 97 (A. Claire Cutler, Professor of International Law and Relations in the Political Science Department at the University of
Victoria; Artifice, Ideology and Paradox: The Public/Private Distinction in International Law; Summer 1997; Taylor & Francis, Ltd,
Article)
The distinction between public and private international law operates at two levels. At one level the distinction operates as a
separation of academic subjects; at another level it operates as a separation of legal doctrines (Paul, 1988). In terms of subject
matter, public international law deals with matters relating to states, international organizations,
and, to a very limited extent, corporations and individuals that raise 'an international legal
interest'.4In contrast, private international law refers to conflict or choice of law principles that
determine the appropriate jurisdictional norms to apply to individual claims involving a foreign
element or foreign persons (Paul, 1988: 150). Private international law also includes international
commercial transactions relating to 'domestic and international regulation of foreign investment
and the movement of goods and workers across national borders' .5 Fox (1992: 351, 357) defines 'private
international law' as 'rules which govern the choice of law in private matters (such as business contracts, marriage, etc.) when those
questions arise in an international context, e.g., will country A enforce the divorce granted under the laws of country B'. 'Public
international law', in contrast, is defined as 'law dealing with the relationship between states'. As
Paul (1988: 163, 150) notes, private international law 'is about private interests engaged in private
transactions (and not about the exercise of public power)'; it 'excludes questions of international
public policy, such as the role of multinationals on social and economic development or the effect
of international arbitration clauses on the enforcement of domestic antitrust laws'. International
public policy concerns are the domain of public international law, for it is states which are
deemed to be authoritative agents in the exercise of public power in international affairs. Doctrinally,
private and public international law are treated as separate. Private international laws derive largely from municipal legal systems,
while public international law derives from international sources.6 However, while many of the principles of private international law
are separate and distinct from those of public international law, often deriving from domestic or municipal law, the doctrinal status of
private international law is contested. Legal theorists disagree about the status of private international law. As will be explained
below, Anglo-American theorists have traditionally expressed doubts that private international law is anything more than domestic or
municipal law. In contrast, European scholars regard private international law as an integral part of public international law.
-- Now Key
US pushing for peace talks, now key
CBS/Associated Press 7-25 (“Israelis, Palestinians to meet in U.S. Next Week for Talks,” CBS/AP, 2013,
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57595437/israelis-palestinians-to-meet-in-u.s-next-week-for-talks/)
An Israeli and a Palestinian official say preliminary peace talks -- agreed to after a shuttle mission by U.S.
Secretary of State John Kerry -- are to begin in Washington on Tuesday. Israeli-Palestinian talks on the terms of a
Palestinian state have been frozen for five years, and both sides have low expectations of the new U.S.
peace push. The two sides are still deeply divided on several issues, including the division of
Jerusalem -- a holy city for both Jews and Muslims - and Israeli-built settlements on territory claimed by both. It's unclear if
those disputes can be resolved in Washington. Israeli Cabinet Minister Silvan Shalom says "there is a good
chance" the preliminary talks will start on Tuesday. A Palestinian diplomat on Thursday confirmed the date, speaking on condition of
anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter with journalists. Earlier this week Kerry called the resumption of
talks "a significant and welcome step forward. "I think all of us know that candid private conversations are the very best way to
preserve the time and the space for progress and understanding, when you face difficult complicated issues such as Mideast
peace," Kerry said. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to lower expectations that a
new push toward peace would succeed. He acknowledged that any peace negotiations with the
Palestinians would be "tough."
Israeli Palestinian peace process reaching decisive point
UN Security Council 7-24 (Report on speech by Robert H. Serry, United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle
East Peace Process at a UN Security Council Meeting, “Hope Mounts In Wake of ‘Promising Opening’ In Middle East Peace
Process, But Both Sides Must Make Tough Choices, Security Council Told; UN Special Coordinator Also Called Attention to
Escalating Secretarian Threats,” UN Security Council, Department of Public Information, 2013,
http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/f4c811144ae216aa85257bb2003f03db?OpenDocument)
Intense diplomatic activity to rekindle the peace process and achieve a two-State solution had
reached a “decisive point” as Israelis and Palestinians had agreed, in principle, to return to the
negotiating table, said the top United Nations Middle East official today during an open debate of the
Security Council. “Some very tough choices will be required from both sides in the period ahead,” said
Robert H. Serry, United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. Yet, a resolution was critical for
the fate of the region, which was witnessing a deepening crisis and humanitarian catastrophe in
Syria and significant political developments in Egypt, he said. It was against that backdrop, he added, that a
“promising opening” had emerged from the intense diplomatic efforts of United States Secretary of State
John Kerry and a number of partners. Those endeavours had led to the announcement that a basis had
been established to resume direct final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, he
said. Leadership, courage and responsibility would be needed on the part of both sides to sustain
that push towards achieving the two-State solution, he continued. It was also crucial to build on the opening
offered by the Arab League ministerial committee’s reaffirmation of the Arab Peace Initiative and the active and concrete support
pledged to the negotiations by European Union Foreign Ministers.
-- Uniqueness
Peace talks poised to be fruitless, lack of good faith over border baseline
Heller 7-21 (Aron, Associated Press Correspondent based in Jerusalem, “Israelis, Palestinians Skeptical About Peace Talks,”
The Washington Times, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/21/israelis-palestinians-skeptical-about-peacetalks/?page=all)
e
Mr. Abbas previously refused to negotiate with Israel so long as settlement construction continued
in part of his hoped-for state. Mr. Netanyahu countered by saying he would enter talks only
without preconditions. The two sides are now set to hold more talks in Washington in coming
days or weeks on the framework of negotiations, meaning a resumption of talks is not yet
assured. Gaps remain on three issues Palestinians say need to be settled before talks can begin: the
baseline for border talks, the extent of a possible Israeli settlement slowdown and a timetable for releasing veteran Palestinian
prisoners. The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in
the 1967 Mideast War. Mr. Abbas seeks a commitment from Mr. Netanyahu that Israel’s pre-1967 border
will serve as a baseline for negotiations, but the Israeli leader has refused to do so . Previous rounds of
negotiations were conducted on those lines. Two Palestinian officials said Saturday that Mr. Abbas agreed to
resume talks only after Mr. Kerry gave him a letter guaranteeing that the pre-1967 borders would
serve as a baseline. The officials, privy to internal discussions, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not
authorized to brief the media. A Western official denied the 1967 borders would be the starting point for
negotiators.
Soft Power Advantage
Soft Power Low
Contradicting values hurts US soft power
Wagner 9 (Coleman Wagner is a senior at the University of North Texas majoring in political science. His studies focus on
international relations and comparative government and politics. “Soft Power and International Public Opinion: U.S Presidents and
the Treatment of Prisoners of War” 2009, http://web3.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/wp-content/2009/08/Wagner_Coleman.pdf)
The traditional idea of power, often referred to as hard power, focuses on the use of military or economic coercion to obtain a
particular outcome. Soft power differs from hard power in that the coercion normally associated with power becomes unnecessary.
With soft power or “co-optive” power, one country relies on its ability to convince another country to
want the same things (Nye, 1990, p. 168). Nye poetically describes this in Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics, writing, “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries – admiring its values,
emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness – want to follow it” (2005, p. 5). In the context of foreign
policy, an abundance of soft power can sway other countries to “emulate” the United States and
particularly the policies and goals of the United States, eliminating some of the frustrations of
international politics (Nye, 2004, p. 17). Unlike hard power, originating from economic and military power, soft power has a
variety of unorthodox sources. Soft power is generally achieved through the attraction of culture, political values, and policies. First,
culture vastly enhances the soft power of a nation. The standard of living, education, arts, sciences, and traditions of a nation attract
or repulse people from across the globe. For example, scholars from around the world envy those who are awarded the opportunity
to study in the United States (Zakaria, 2008). Second, soft power arises out of a nation‟s political values. A nation‟s ethics
can either bolster or damage a country‟s reputation. Although the values do not affect them personally, foreign
peoples do hold strong opinions about the values of the United States and, consequently,
evaluate it based on those values. The United States‟ beliefs in self-determination, democracy,
and human rights bring positive attention to the country (Nye, 2005). Nye cites capital punishment and a lack of
gun control as policies that are harmful to our soft power (2005). Last, a nation‟s policies (foreign and domestic) must match the
values that the country claims to possess and promote. A country that fails to practice what it preaches will not
only fail to gain soft power, but it will most likely lose soft power. Activities that are perceived as illegitimate
or hypocritical can drain soft power reserves while cooperation, widely productive initiatives, and shared values can add to a
country‟s soft power (Nye, 2005; 2008). Soft power can be concerning for political decision makers because it can affect the
success of foreign policies. Political leaders do not answer directly to foreign audiences, but these audiences can make or break the
success of foreign policy initiatives. Specifically, if an audience thinks poorly of the United States, that
audience is unlikely to favor decisions of its own political leaders that support or assist U.S.
objectives (Nye, 2005; 2008).
A2 “Alt Cause – PRISM”
Not a Done Deal- no guarantees we will lose soft power due to PRISM
Arkedis 13 (Jim, Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, DOD counter-terrorism analyst, “PRISM is Bad for
American Soft Power” June 19, 2013, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/prism-is-bad-foramerican-soft-power/277015/)
It's not too late. The PATRIOT Act is up for reauthorization in 2015. In the context of a diminished threat, the White
House still has time to push the public debate on still-hidden, controversial intelligence strategies
(while safeguarding specific sources and methods). Further, the administration should seek to empower the FISA court. Rather that
defer to the Supreme Court to appoint its panel of judges, it would be better to have Senate-confirmable justices serving limited
terms. President Obama has said Americans can't have 100 percent security and 100 percent
privacy. But you can have an honest public debate about that allows Americans to legitimately
decide where to strike that balance. It's both the right thing to do and American foreign policy
demands it.
Gitmo Internal
Guantanamo Bay kills U.S. influence and causes global public opinion on U.S to
plummet
Fairfax 2007 (Fairfax Media Limited [ASX:FXJ] is a leading multi-platform media company in Australasia. The group comprises
metropolitan, rural, regional and community mastheads and serves its audiences through high-quality, independent journalism and
offers dynamic venues for commerce and information. “How the mighty are fallen” http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/how-themighty-are-fallen/2007/01/23/1169330868042.html) SJH
Global opinion on American foreign policy and the role of the US in world affairs, especially in the
Middle East, has plunged to new lows, with overwhelming condemnation of its handling of the war in Iraq. An
authoritative BBC World Service survey of more than 26,000 people from 25 countries across Asia, Europe, Latin America and the
Middle East shows that nearly three in four people disapprove of how the US has dealt with Iraq over the past 12
months.Respondents were polled in November and December - before the announcement by the US President, George Bush, of his
new surge strategy in Iraq, and his plans to send an extra 21,500 troops into Baghdad to quell the sectarian violence gripping the
capital. The polling also showed global public opinion was against US handling of detainees at
Guantanamo Bay, where David Hicks has been held without trial for more than five years, with 67 per cent of respondents
opposed.The countries whose citizens were most strident in their opposition over Guantanamo Bay
were Germany, Egypt, Turkey, Portugal, Italy, France and Lebanon, with 80 per cent or more
opposed. Of the Australians polled, 77 per cent disapproved of the US Guantanamo Bay policies,
while 76 per cent of Britons and 72 per cent of Indonesians also expressed disapproval. The poll was
conducted by the international polling firm GlobeScan. In only four of the 25 countries surveyed did a majority of respondents
believe America's influence in the world was "mainly positive". They were Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines and the US.The countries
most disparaging of the role of the US in global affairs were Germany (74 per cent said it had a "mainly negative" impact) and
Indonesia (71 per cent). In Australia, 60 per cent of respondents viewed America's influence as mainly negative. Opinion on the
global influence of the US plunged most dramatically among citizens of its close ally Poland - one of the
original coalition of the willing in Iraq - where positive responses fell from 62 per cent a year ago to 38 per cent. Similarly, in the
Philippines positive opinion about the US impact on world affairs fell by 13 points to 72 per cent, in India by 14 points to 30 per cent,
and in Indonesia by 19 points to 21 per cent.Respondents were polled on eight topics related to US foreign
policy. In addition to Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and its global influence, people were asked about America's role in the
Middle East. They were also asked how they thought the US had handled Iran's nuclear program, the war between Israel and
Hezbollah in Lebanon, North Korea's nuclear weapons program and global warming.France, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Argentina
and Brazil were the most critical of the US presence in the Middle East. In each, 80 per cent or more of the people polled said they
believed the US provoked more conflict in the region than it prevented.
Guantanamo decreases U.S. soft power- sends bad signal to other countries
Nye 7 Joseph s. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government atHarvard University. He currently holds the position of University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard
University[1] , Jr. “CSIS COMMISSION ON SMART”POWER”http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071106_csissmartpowerreport.pdf
SJH
Second, American
leaders ought to eliminate the symbols that have come to represent the image of
an intolerant, abusive, unjust America. The unfairness of such a characterization does not minimize its persuasive
power abroad. Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center is an obvious starting point and should
lead to a broader rejection of torture and prisoner abuse. Guantanamo’s very existence
undermines America’s ability to carry forth a message of principled optimism and hope . Although
closing Guantanamo will be no simple matter, legal and practical constraints are surmountable if it should become a
priority of American leadership, and planning for its closure should begin well before the next president
takes office. Third, we should use our diplomatic power for positive ends. Equally important to closing Guantanamo
is expending political capital to end the corrosive effect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United
States must resume its traditional role as an effective broker for peace in the Middle East, recognizing that all parties involved in the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict have a responsibility to bring about a peaceful solution. Although we cannot want peace more than the
parties themselves, we cannot be indifferent to the widespread suffering that this conflict perpetuates, nor the passionate feelings
that it arouses on all sides. Many have rightly made this recommendation before, and many will do so in the future until a just peace
can be realized. In the Middle East and elsewhere, effective American mediation confers global legitimacy and
is a vital source of smart power.
Methods used in Guantanamo destroy U.S. credibility and undermine U.S soft
power
Nye and Yale 04 (Joseph s. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of
Government atHarvard University. He currently holds the position of University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard
University[1] “Can America Regain Its Soft Power After Abu Ghraib?” http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/can-america-regain-its-softpower-after-abu-ghraib) SJH
One of the heaviest costs of the Iraq War has been the loss of America’s reputation worldwide,
writes Harvard professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. The image of America as an arrogant, global bully is increasingly
commonplace around the world. The abuses at Abu Ghraib prison have exacerbated this negative
perception of the US, and contributed to the decline of America’s 'soft power '. For decades after WWII,
Nye argues, America's soft power proved instrumental in influencing human rights policies and
attracting people around the world to democracy. Yet the US now spends a minimal amount of its
budget on soft power programs, allotting a mere $150 million a year to public diplomacy in the Islamic world. “There is
something wrong with our priorities,” Nye writes, “when the world’s leading country in the information age is doing such a poor job of
getting its message out.” Nevertheless, Nye continues, the US’s reputation will ultimately survive the negative
press of horrors such as Abu Ghraib, as its democratic system demands that the individuals who
committed and permitted these wrongs be brought to justice. “Even when mistaken policies
reduce our attractiveness, our ability to openly criticize and correct our mistakes makes us attractive to others at a deeper
level,” Nye concludes. – YaleGlobal
Guantanamo undermines international image and ruins soft power
Van Veeran 12 (Elspeth, Economic and Social Research Council Postdoctoral Research Fellow in International Relations at
the University of Sussex, “Guantanamo Ten Years Later- Necessity or Troublesome Legacy?”, January 10, 2012,
http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/newsandevents?id=11379)
In addition to having a pzrofound and lasting legacy for the men detained there (many released detainees have been traumatized
and stigmatized by their time at the site), it has facilitated a militarization of counter-terrorism, it has altered international perceptions
of the US, and it has resulted in the production of a cultural and political icon. Where countering and responding to terrorism was
once the domain of the FBI and CIA, Guantánamo has for some proved that the US military can be used to
detain and prosecute terrorists – a first for the US military, and a function that goes against
centuries of US law. Paradoxically, this transformation means that President Obama may be less likely to detain terrorists
and more likely to resort to targeted killing, as occurred for example with the recent assassination of US citizen Anwar al- Awlak
using unmanned aerial vehicles operated by the CIA. Guantánamo’s existence has had a profound impact on
perceptions of the US and its values, undermining American ‘soft power’ . Finally. the orangeclad, hooded Guantánamo detainee is a globally recognised figure used to symbolise abuse and
torture. This image has become visual shorthand for any manner of practices and locations where
abuse is alleged, and will be with us for a while.
Closure Key
Closing Guantanamo increases U.S. soft power
Barker 10 (Dr. Peter Barker attended Oxford University in the United Kingdom, where he received a Bachelor of Arts degree in
chemistry and then a Doctor of Philosophy degree in physical chemistry. He conducted his post doctoral research at California
Institute of Technology “Soft Power, Hard Power, and Our Image Abroad”
http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations/2010/22quirkpoliticalscience.pdf) SJH
Global perceptions the world held of the U.S. changed drastically since President Obama took
office in 2009. Both President Obama and Vice-President Biden agree that “a strong rejection of the unilateralism and reliance
on ‘hard power’ of President George W. Bush” is necessary to improve our foreign relations (Lobe). Some examples of
Obama fostering soft power that were given include: closing the Guantanamo Bay detention
facility, outlawing detainee torture, reinforcing the commitment of the U.S. to the power of the Geneva Convention, and
changing the rhetoric of the War on Terrorism. Obama wants to make sure Muslims understand that the U.S. is
not at war with Islam, “the nation is at war with Al-Qaeda, Obama says, but not with terrorism,
which, as he understands it is a tactic, not an enemy”
Impact – Democracy
US soft power is key to promoting democracy
Nye 2 (Joseph S. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University. “Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone” Oxford University Press,
2002, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/michstate/Doc?id=10212058&ppg=172)
The promotion of democracy is also a national interest and a source of soft power, though here the role of force is usually less
central and the process is of a longer-term nature. The United States has both an ideological and a pragmatic
interest in the promotion of democracy. While the argument that democracies never go to war with each other is too
simple, it is hard to find cases of liberal democracies doing so. 25 Illiberal populist democracies such as Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela,
or Iran, or countries going through the early stages of democratization, may become dangerous, but liberal democracies are less
likely to produce refugees or engage in terrorism. 26 President Clinton’s 1995 statement that “ ultimately the best strategy
to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy
elsewhere” has a core of truth if approached with the caveats just described. 27 The key is to follow tactics that are likely to
succeed over the long term without imposing inordinate costs on other foreign policy objectives in the near term. At the
beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was among a handful of democracies. Since
then, albeit with setbacks, the number has grown impressively. A third wave of democratization began in southern
Europe in the 1970s, spread to Latin America and parts of Asia in the 1980s, and hit Eastern Europe in the 28 Prior to the 1980s,
the United States did not pursue aid to democracy on a wide basis, but since the Reagan and Clinton administrations, such aid has
become a deliberate instrument of policy. By the mid-1990s, a host of U.S. agencies (State Department, Defense Department, AID,
Justice Department, National Endowment for Democracy) were spending over $700 million on such work. 29 Our economic
and soft power helps promote democratic values, and at the same time, our belief in human rights
and democracy helps to increase our soft power.
Democracy solves war
Nye 11 (Joseph S. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School of Government at
Harvard University. “The Future of Power” New York: Perseus Books Group, 2011. 28-29. Print.)
Whether rooted in human nature as in the classic realism of Thucydides and Machiavelli or in the larger systemic forces stressed by
modern structural realism, military resources that provide the ability to prevail in war are conventionally portrayed as the most
important form of power in global affairs. Indeed, in the nineteenth century the definition of a great power was the ability to prevail in
war, and certainly war persists today. But as we saw in the last chapter, the world has become more
complex since the nineteenth century, and the realist model does not fit all parts equally. British diplomat Robert
Cooper argues that there are at least three different domains—postindustrial, industrializing, and preindustrial—of interstate
relations, with war playing a different role in each. For the postindustrial world of advanced democracies, war
is no longer a major instrument in their relations with each other. In this world, theorists correctly assert that
it is almost impossible to find instances of advanced liberal democracies fighting each other.
Instead, they are locked in a politics of complex interdependence in which other tools are used in
power struggles. This does not mean that advanced democracies do not go to war with other states or that fragile new
democracies cannot go to war with each other. And for newly industrializing states such as China and India, war remains a potential
instrument, as realists would predict. Similarly, among preindustrial societies, including much of Africa and the Middle East, the
realist model remains a good fit. So the twenty-first-century answer to the question "Is military power the most important form of
power in world politics?" depends upon the context. In much of the world, the answer is yes, but not in all domains or on all issues.
Impact – Economy
Soft power key to the global economy
Nye 3 (Joseph, Professor – Kennedy School of Government – Harvard University, U.S. Power and Strategy After Iraq, Foreign
Affairs, July/August, Lexis)
The problem for U.S. power in the twenty-first century is that more and more continues to fall outside the control of even the most
powerful state. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures of hard power, these measures fail to
capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought about by globalization and the democratization of
technology. The paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that makes it impossible for the strongest
world power since Rome to achieve some of its most crucial international goals alone. The
U nited S tates lacks both the
international and the domestic capacity to resolve conflicts that are internal to other societies and to monitor and control
transnational developments that threaten Americans at home. On many of today's key issues, such as international
financial stability, drug trafficking, the spread of diseases, and especially the new terrorism, military power
alone simply cannot produce success, and its use can sometimes be counterproductive. Instead, as the most powerful
country, the
U nited S tates must mobilize international coalitions to address these shared threats and
challenges. By devaluing soft power and institutions, the new unilateralist coalition of Jacksonians and neoWilsonians is depriving Washington of some of its most important instruments for the implementation of the
new national security strategy. If they manage to continue with this tack, the United States could fail what Henry Kissinger
called the historical test for this generation of American leaders: to use current preponderant U.S. power to achieve an international
consensus behind widely accepted norms that will protect American values in a more uncertain future. Fortunately, this outcome is
not preordained.
Impact – Leadership
Soft power is key to overall U.S. leadership
Sen 5 (Sankar, Former Director – Indian National Police Academy, The Statesman, 4-5, Lexis)
Indeed anti-American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the
aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, anti-Americanism is widely thought to have reached new
heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step
aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase
manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests
will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of power without cooperation
becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no
concrete progress. There is also another disquieting development. It seems American soft power is waning and it is
losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a
beacon. Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in
the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create
disenchantment and may gradually affect American pre-eminence.
Decline of soft power will result in numerous escalating conflicts globally
Nye 96 (Joseph, Professor – Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Washington Quarterly, Winter, Lexis)
As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal conflicts since the end
of the Cold War, many of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very
difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The UN, regional
organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus the
inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of
identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic
groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to carry out
when both those using force and those on the receiving end are disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and
subnational groups. Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some
impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states within their respective regions. This can
happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into
neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic propaganda also
raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher
attacks on civilian populations as well as military personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become
more numerous if the UN and regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal
Leadership by the U nited S tates, as
the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and a leading democracy, is a key factor in limiting the
frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the postwith such conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role
cold war role of the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and
military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its
international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve every
conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them. Yet the United
States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or not the United
States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman; rather,
the U nited
S tates can frequently serve as the sheriff of the posse, leading shifting coalitions of friends and allies to
address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of international organizations. This requires
sustained attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action
possible: forward stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment,
advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict resolution
abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional security organizations and alliances, and global institutions.
Modern flow of information makes soft power key
Joseph Nye (Distinguished Service Professor, Dean of the School of Government at Harvard University), 2008, DigitalNPQ,
“When Hard Power Undermines Soft Power,” http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2004_summer/nye.html
Politics in an information age “may ultimately be about whose story wins” (Arquila and Ronfeldt 1999).
Governments compete with each other and with other organizations to enhance their own credibility and weaken that
of their opponents. Witness the struggle between Serbia and NATO to frame the interpretation of
events in Kosovo in 1999 and the events in Serbia a year later. Prior to the demonstrations that led to the overthrow of
Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000, 45 percent of Serb adults were tuned to Radio Free Europe and VOA. In contrast, only 31
percent listened to the state-controlled radio station, Radio Belgrade (Kaufman 2003). Moreover, the
domestic alternative radio station, B92, provided access to Western news, and when the government
tried to shut it down, it continued to provide such news on the Internet. Reputation has always mattered in world politics, but
the role of credibility becomes an even more important power resource because of the “paradox of plenty.” Information that
appears to be propaganda may not only be scorned, but it may also turn out to be
counterproductive if it undermines a country’s reputation for credibility.
Hegemony requires soft power
Florig 10 (Dennis, Professor, Division of International Studies at Hanuk Korean University of Foreign Studies
“Hegemonic
Overreach vs. Imperial Overstretch” April 30, 2010
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7918455)
In international relations, the theory of hegemony is crucial because it captures both the tendency
of the world’s leading power to forcefully assert its dominance yet at the same time to create
alliances, ideas, and institutions that attract the relatively free participation of other states and
peoples in a more or less open international system. Hegemony thus embodies both the coercion of informal empire and
the consent of democratic participation. It combines both the “hard” power of military and
economic empire with the “soft” power of democratic ideas and global institutions. Because the
current international system built around U.S. hegemony thus contains both elements of coercion and consent, over time it could
evolve in either the direction of an expanded informal empire or a more democratic, peaceful world order.
Impact – Multilateralism
Soft power is key to multilateralism
Maxime Gomichon (Lecturer at the Sciences Po Bordeaux), 3-08-13, E-IR.info, “Joseph Nye on Soft Power,” http://www.eir.info/2013/03/08/joseph-nye-on-soft-power/
soft power, a positive-sum interaction can be implemented. ‘Soft power need not be a
zero-sum game in which one country’s gain is necessarily another country’s loss’ (Nye, 2011, p.90). Soft power can therefore
benefit each side. It contradicts the Realist assumption that states only seek security. For Nye and other
Liberal thinkers, states sometimes seek prosperity. Thus, Nye succeeds in putting together the assertion of the
pre-eminence of the United States with the Liberal theory of a multilateral international system. He
Even with
uses a three-dimensional chess game (Nye, 2004a, p.136-137): on the top chessboard, military power is unipolar, with the
hegemony of the United States. On the economic board, power is multipolar: even though the U.S. takes first place,
it is not hegemonic. And on the bottom chessboard, transnational relations are a dispersed power where no one leads. Therefore,
the author can conclude that the U.S. must be mainly concerned with the bottom chessboard and it must
use soft power to deal with this problem. Finally, for both the concept of soft power and the case of the U.S., Nye uses
Liberalism, and particularly Neoliberal theory, to justify his arguments.
Impact – Terrorism
Soft Power key to fighting terrorism
Nye 06 (Joseph, former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, University
Professor at Harvard University “Think Again: Soft Power” Yale Global onlinehttp://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/think-again-softpower)
False. There is a small likelihood that the West will ever attract such people as Mohammed Atta or Osama bin Laden. We need hard
power to deal with people like them. But the current terrorist threat is not Samuel Huntington’s clash of
civilizations. It is a civil war within Islam between a majority of moderates and a small minority
who want to coerce others into an extremist and oversimplified version of their religion. The United States
cannot win unless the moderates win. We cannot win unless the number of people the extremists
are recruiting is lower than the number we are killing and deterring. Rumsfeld himself asked in a 2003 memo:
“Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are
recruiting, training, and deploying against us?” That equation will be very hard to balance without a strategy
to
win hearts and minds. Soft power is more relevant than ever.
Soft Power combats Terrorism
Nye 4 (Joseph, former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence Council, University
Professor at Harvard University “Soft Power and the Struggle Against Terrorism” April 21, 2004 http://www.projectsyndicate.org/commentary/soft-power-and-the-struggle-against-terrorism#ZObikPc9FjwIvuU5.99)
Soft Power and the Struggle Against Terrorism
Last year, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, asked
Secretary of State Colin Powell why the United States seemed to focus only on its hard power rather than its soft power. Secretary
Powell replied that the US had used hard power to win World War II, but he continued: "What followed immediately after hard
power? Did the US ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan.We did the same
thing in Japan." After the war in Iraq ended, I spoke about soft power (a concept I developed) to a conference co-sponsored by the
US Army in Washington. One speaker was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. According to a press account, "the top military
brass listened sympathetically," but when someone asked Rumsfeld for his opinion on soft power, he replied, "I don't know what it
means." One of Rumsfeld's "rules" is that "weakness is provocative." He is correct, up to a point. As Osama bin Laden observed,
people like a strong horse. But power, defined as the ability to influence others, comes in many guises, and soft power is not
weakness. On the contrary, it is the failure to use soft power effectively that weakens America in the struggle against terrorism. Soft
power is the ability to get what one wants by attracting others rather than threatening or paying them. It is based on culture, political
ideals, and policies. When you persuade others to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to
move them in your direction. Hard power, which relies on coercion, grows out of military and economic might. It remains crucial in a
world populated by threatening states and terrorist organizations. But soft power will become increasingly
important in preventing terrorists from recruiting new supporters, and for obtaining the
international cooperation necessary for countering terrorism. The US is more powerful than any
country since the Roman Empire, but like Rome, America is neither invincible nor invulnerable.
Rome did not succumb to the rise of another empire, but to the onslaught of waves of barbarians.
Modern high-tech terrorists are the new barbarians. The US cannot alone hunt down every
suspected Al Qaeda leader. Nor can it launch a war whenever it wishes without alienating other countries. The four-week
war in Iraq was a dazzling display of America's hard military power that removed a vicious tyrant. But it did not remove America's
vulnerability to terrorism. It was also costly in terms of our soft power to attract others. In the aftermath of the war, polls showed a
dramatic decline in the popularity of the US even in countries like Britain, Spain, and Italy, whose governments supported the war.
America's standing plummeted in Islamic countries, whose support is needed to help track the
flow of terrorists, tainted money, and dangerous weapons. The war on terrorism is not a clash of
civilizations - Islam versus the West - but a civil war within Islamic civilization between extremists
who use violence to enforce their vision and a moderate majority who want things like jobs, education,
health care, and dignity as they pursue their faith. America will not win unless the moderates win. American
soft power will never attract Osama bin Laden and the extremists. Only hard power can deal with them. But
soft power will play a crucial role in attracting moderates and denying the extremists new recruits.
During the Cold War, the West's strategy of containment combined the hard power of military
deterrence with the soft power of attracting people behind the Iron Curtain. Behind the wall of military
containment, the West ate away Soviet self-confidence with broadcasts, student and cultural exchanges, and the success of
capitalist economics. As a former KGB official later testified, "Exchanges were a Trojan horse for the Soviet Union. They played
a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system." In retirement, President Dwight Eisenhower said that he
should have taken money out of the defense budget to strengthen the US Information Agency. With the Cold War's end, Americans
became more interested in budget savings than in investing in soft power. In 2003, a bipartisan advisory group reported that the US
was spending only $150 million on public diplomacy in Muslim countries, an amount it called grossly inadequate. Indeed, the
combined cost for the State Department's public diplomacy programs and all of America's international broadcasting is just over $1
billion, about the same amount spent by Britain or France, countries that are one-fifth America's size and whose military budgets are
only 25% as large. No one would suggest that America spend as much to launch ideas as to launch bombs, but it does seem odd
that the US spends 400 times as much on hard power as on soft power. If the US spent just 1% of the military budget on soft power,
it would quadruple its current spending on this key component of the war on terrorism. If America is to win that war, its
leaders are going to have to do better at combining soft and hard power into "smart power."
Soft Power Necessary to Fight Terrorism- Even the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
admits
NBC 7 (“Defense Chief: Fight Terrorism with ‘Soft Power’”, November 26, 2007,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21980961/ns/us_news-security/t/defense-chief-fight-terrorism-softpower/#.Ue7JU42cfK0)
WASHINGTON — Defeating terrorism will require the use of more “soft power,” with civilians
contributing more in communication, economic assistance, political development and other nonmilitary areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates called for the creation of new government
organizations, including a permanent group of civilian experts with a wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short
notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more involvement by university and other private experts. “We must
focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen,” he said in
a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. “We must also focus our energies on the other
elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years.” He said the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia, have shown that long -term
success requires more than U.S. military power. “Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former
director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use ‘soft’
power and for better integrating it with ‘hard’ power,” Gates said. Many have argued that the Bush administration missed
opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus on economic
development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals. The lesson, Gates said,
is that nontraditional conflict — against insurgents, guerrillas and terrorists — will be the mainstay of battlefields for years to come,
requiring more than military power. “Success will be less a matter of imposing one’s will and more a
function o)f shaping behavior — of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between,” Gates told his
audience of students, faculty and local residents. He spoke as part of Kansas State’s Landon lecture series, named for former
Kansas governor Alfred Landon. Last November the lecture was delivered by the man Gates replaced at the Pentagon, Donald
Rumsfeld, who made a similar argument in favor of strengthening the role of the State Department and other federal agencies and
linking their efforts more closely with those of the Pentagon. Iran on the minds of protesters Outside the lecture hall a small group of
anti-war protesters wore T-shirts reading “Don’t Iraq Iran.” Margaret Pendleton, a sophomore public relations major, urged
diplomacy, making her point with a sign showing the faces of Iranian children. “I support the troops, but in the same note I don’t want
to see any more war,” she said. After his speech, Gates fielded questions from the audience, several on the war in Iraq and on the
prospects for conflict with Iran. When a woman who described herself as a retired social worker asked him when U.S. troops would
be withdrawn from Iraq, Gates noted that a limited pullout has begun under a plan that is to bring home five Army brigades between
now and next July. And he expressed hope that conditions in Iraq would improve enough by then to permit further U.S. withdrawals.
Another questioner cited reports of a rising suicide rate among returned Iraq veterans and asked Gates whether he would consider
that problem to be a reason to pull out all U.S. forces by the end of 2008. Such suicides are "a real concern to us,” Gates replied. At
the same time, “this is going to be a problem” in any war, along with divorces and other personal upheaval linked to the stress of
combat, he said. The Iran questions focused on the lack of a high-level dialogue aimed at averting war, and Gates reiterated that
while no option should be ruled out, he would consider military action a last resort. In his speech, Gates said there is an
urgent need to figure out how to better organize the government to meet the security challenges
of the 21st century. Among shortcomings in the non-military area, Gates singled out U.S. strategic communications. He said
the U.S. government is “miserable” at communicating its goals and policies to foreign audiences. “It is just plain
embarrassing that al-Qaida is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America,”
he said. “Speed, agility and cultural relevance are not terms that come readily to mind when discussing U.S. strategic
communications.” He decried the “gutting” in the 1990s of the U.S. government’s ability to communicate effectively. He also called
for bigger budgets for the State Department, whose foreign affairs spending, he said, is less than one-tenth what the Pentagon
spends in a year, not counting the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I am well aware that having a sitting defense secretary
travel halfway across the country to make a pitch to increase the budget of other agencies might fit into the category of ‘man bites
dog’ — or, for some back in the Pentagon, ‘blasphemy,”’ Gates said. Still, he said, senior military officers often stress to him the
importance of civilian roles in Iraq and Afghanistan.
US soft power and control of narrative key to solving for terrorism- Hambali
proves
Harman 12 (Jane, a nine-term Congresswoman and former ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee,
Rresident and chief executive of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, “Fighting Terrorism Softly” July 10, 2012
http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/10/fighting-terrorism-softly-opinion/)
"Too often since 9/11," then-Sen. Barack Obama said during the last presidential campaign, "the extremists have defined us, not the
other way around." In a major counterterrorism policy speech at the Wilson Center in Washington, Obama vowed that would change
if he became president. "We will author our own story," he said. Unfortunately, one of the greatest security threats
to this country continues to be the hijacking not only of our airplanes, but also of our national narrative.
Many Americans think that the United States' primary role in the world is the projection of military might. And while the "hard power"
represented by drone strikes and aircraft carriers is essential to our security, living and portraying our values is as - if
not more - important in the long run. But what about the young people who perhaps see the aftermath of a drone strike and
are still trying to decide whether or not to strap on that suicide vest? Whose story do we want them to
hear? Ours or that of the extremists? While the drone program is an effective tool to combat al Qaeda, "whack-a-mole"
alone won't keep us safe. We need to win the argument. Unfortunately, showcasing our values to the world has become
increasingly difficult given Congress's lack of cohesiveness and eroding support for foreign aid. Blame-game politics has shifted the
emphasis from creative ideas to crippling ideology, making it nearly impossible to raise and debate some of the toughest issues
facing this country today. As a result, we are perilously close to losing control of our own narrative,
allowing extremists to slip in and define what we believe in and what we stand for in the post-9/11
world. Foggy laws and a lack of information surrounding targeted killings, preventive detention, and interrogation techniques have
made it far too easy for terrorists to shape and spread their own story. And they will continue to use any stains on
our record (think: Abu Ghraib) as ammunition. So how can we "author our own story”? One of the most powerful ways to
project American values and define our interests is to display generosity and compassion in the wake of natural disasters. While the
primary role of the military should not be to oversee recovery efforts after an earthquake, our extraordinary competence at staging
disaster relief allows the US to puts its best face forward for those who might not otherwise see it. At a panel on security resilience
at the World Economic Forum in Bangkok last month, I outlined how the United States had the chance to showcase its better angels
after several recent disasters, including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, the Thai floods, the 2005 earthquake in
Pakistan, and the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear disaster. Following these catastrophes, the U.S. provided more than just "hard"
assistance designed to save lives. In Thailand, Americans and Thais packed and delivered food, donated blood, and gathered
supplies together. In Japan, U.S. forces cleared rubble from schools. And in both places, Americans opened their homes to
displaced colleagues and children. These efforts had a direct impact on U.S. relations with the affected countries. Japanese Cabinet
office polls registered record levels of public goodwill towards the U.S. after the rescue efforts, and 85% of Japanese viewed the
United States positively in Pew's annual Global Attitude Project survey in 2011 - up from 66% the year before. Ironically, our best
foreign policy tool may be our generosity. Building trust both with citizens and governments after natural disasters
can help increase future collaboration on other key issues-with counterterrorism topping the list.
The capture of Indonesian-born terrorist Hambali, who was seized in Bangkok by Thai authorities,
in many ways exemplifies the importance of establishing and maintaining these liaison
relationships. The war against al Qaeda and its affiliates is new in so many ways: Our enemies don't wear uniforms, the
battleground isn't clearly defined, and the conflict is potentially never-ending. Still, some old war lessons might apply. In a new book
called “Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War,” political science professor Andrew J. Polsky draws on numerous
historical examples to show that presidents at war are not as powerful as they think. Once conflict begins, they find themselves
constrained by their earlier decisions. "I claim not to have controlled events," Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter during the Civil War,
"but confess plainly that events have controlled me." Just as presidents lose control over events during wartime, they can also have
difficulty holding on to a coherent narrative. One of the biggest surprises of Barack Obama's presidency is that the cerebral law
professor has emerged as an extraordinarily strong commander-in-chief, successfully targeting many of the world's most dangerous
terrorists. Meanwhile, for the eloquent leader who promised to "author our own story," winning the war of words has become an
even greater challenge. While the president can't control every contingency on the ground, he (and Congress) has a responsibility to
craft a winning narrative. When we fail to step up and define ourselves, the extremists will be happy to do it for us.
CMR Advantage
CMR Low
Uniqueness – CMR Low – multiple warrants
Munson, 12 (Peter J., Marine officer, author, and Middle East specialist, A Caution on Civil-Military Relations, Small Wars
Journal, November 12, 2012 - 10:40am, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/a-caution-on-civil-military-relations, accessed 7/23/13)
PE
This brief post represents only a few quickly dashed thoughts in the hope of getting something on paper that might morph into a
longer and more useful essay on civil-military relations. I believe that civil-military relations in the United States are
deeply troubled. The issues are lurking mostly in the background right now. On the surface, our leadership—
civilian and military—has been able to negotiate some relatively complex rapids without any of the major drama that has cropped up
in the past. The falling out between Truman and MacArthur comes to mind. Nonetheless, there are serious background issues that
will only get worse in 2014 and beyond. There are several reasons for concern. The all-volunteer force has
fought two brutal wars for over a decade while a (guilty or thankful) American population has stood by with
very little involvement. There have been no war bonds, no victory gardens, no bandage wrapping drives, no
air raid drills—nothing to make them feel a part of the conflict other than the human interest stories about killed
and wounded veterans and the once-nightly footage of shattered HMMWVs and burning convoys. This has created an
inequality in experience and sacrifice that the public has generally attempted to repay through extreme deference and evermultiplying shows of thankfulness, the likes of which have never been seen in American society. Part of this is as a corrective to the
disgraceful treatment of our Vietnam veterans, to be sure, but it has consequences nonetheless. In the face of such an inequality of
experience and service and in such a deferential environment, public criticism of the military is all too easily dismissed as
unpatriotic. Not only is this foil used to deflect criticism, but its threat deters many from bringing up much needed commentary and
dissent. Likewise, unquestioning support of the military plays no small factor in making any discussion of rationalizing military
budgets and targeting wasteful military spending difficult, if not impossible. Late addition: This dynamic plays out in
media coverage of the military, as well, leading to an insufficient criticality, or at least a lack of perspective, in
much coverage. At worst, the media becomes a propaganda arm or engages in a cult of hero worship that perpetuates the
dynamics above. As this coverage creates narratives that impact critical national security decisions, it likewise skews civil-military
relations. The media is a central part of any civil-military dynamic in a democracy, providing the information that informs public
discourse and shapes the decision-making space. If the media is incapable of being a relatively objective
arbiter, this contributes to a flawed civil-military dynamic. The military, itself, has internalized much
of this adulation. When ushered to the front of boarding lines at the airport, offered discounts at a myriad of establishments,
proffered all sorts of swag at any number of appreciation venues, and even venerated daily on cable news with the incredibly selfcentered practice of surprise homecomings, it is difficult for members of the military not to fall victim to a culture of creeping
narcissism. Faced with lengthy, rapid fire deployments that placed some military members away from the stabilizing influences of
family and normality for years of their lives, the military itself had to play up a narrative of sacrifice and exceptionalism to help keep
the trains running. This narrative was drummed into the military and reinforced by its members who saw themselves deploying again
and again as society stayed home and placed them on a pedestal. This is not to say that the sacrifice was insignificant, but to
acknowledge that there were second order effects of the adulation. Even within the military, there was a significant inequality in
hardships faced, from “FOBbits” with daily access to all the comforts of home to infantrymen living in squalor and under the constant
threat of not only death, but horrific dismemberment. This additional dynamic, as an aside, has led to a significant insecurity on the
part of some (but surely not most or all) of those servicemembers who operated in support roles. You can see it in those who make
cryptic references to their “special operations” background or play up training that they never rightfully received. You see, even
within the military there is a distinct hierarchy of who has truly “been there and done that” and those who feel they must insinuate
that they did. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that the post-WWII culture just assumed that everyone had done their part and
little need be said about it. In all, this adds up to a military that at least in part feels it has earned entitlement,
that it deserves the deferential treatment it receives, and that America needs to sacrifice to provide for the
military—whether that be benefits or budget outlays. This is an incredibly dangerous cultural artifact, especially in light of the
coming period of adjustment. As America’s involvement in Afghanistan winds down and as the nation is forced to adjust to new
fiscal realities, the military will face a time of significant adjustment and likely austerity. A military with an entitled culture and an
inability to countenance searing introspection will be unable to properly adjust to these new realities and will fail to make the
necessary reforms, corrections, and resets that the strategic situation demands. More critically, the prospects for an unfavorable
outcome in Afghanistan, coupled with significant budget cuts, will open the door for a “knife in the back” narrative that might argue
that the civilian politicians and the American public “lost” the conflict by giving up on the great sacrifice and heroic efforts of the
American military there and, furthermore, the government then slashed the military budget (and perhaps restructured some
entitlements) betraying a military charged with facing a plethora of threats around the world. Such a narrative would be dangerous—
poisonous—for civil-military relations. In this it is important to recognize that our political institutions are undergoing a crisis
of their own. Trust in government is at its lowest ebb in recent history. Political polarization is at its highest mark since the Great
Depression. Demographic and economic pressures will multiply in coming years not only on the US, but more significantly on its key
allies in Europe. The world will see a significant transformation of its power structure in the coming decades, all of which will put
great strain on the country’s civil-military relations. Thus, it is of critical importance that we discuss, address, and correct any flaws in
this dynamic now before they reach crisis proportions in the years to come.
CMR low – their evidence focuses on the wrong aspects of CMR
Owens 12 (Mackubin Thomas, American military historian and conservative political figure, Associate Dean of Academics for
Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning for the Naval War College, “Best Defense
department of civil-military relations,” Monday, August 6, 2012, Online,
http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/06/mac_owens_on_the_forgotten_dimensions_of_american_civil_military_relations,
accessed 7/27/13) PE
It is fair to say that most Americans do not pay much attention to civil-military relations (CMR) and on
the rare occasions when they do, they equate the term almost exclusively with civilian control of the
military. There are a couple of reasons for this: First, U.S. CMRs appear to be fairly healthy, especially in terms of civilian control.
The U.S. military as an institution seems to have internalized a commitment to civilian control. Second, most of those who have
written about U.S. CMR, from Sam Huntington to Richard Kohn and Peter Feaver, have focused on civilian control. But this is
problematic: It may cause citizens to miss other signs of unhealthy CMR. For soldiers, this focus,
especially as articulated by Huntington in The Soldier and the State, which provides an "ideal" formula for maintaining civilian
control while also keeping the military strong, means that they will tend to focus on operational factors -- how to fight wars -- at the
expense of strategy, the purpose for which a war is fought. In other words, they may fail to connect operational art, at
which the U.S. military excels, to political goals. My own argument is that it is necessary to take a broader
perspective on CMR. Civilian control is important but it is not the only dimension of CMR. For citizens and soldiers to ignore the
other dimensions of CMR runs the risk of placing the Republic in peril.
Gitmo Internal
Link – public support for closure
Reuters, 13 (“John McCain: Guantanamo Bay Closure Has Increasing Public Support,” 06/09/2013 1:24 pm EDT, Huffington
Post, Online, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/john-mccain-guantanamo_n_3412111.html, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday there is increasing public support for closing the
military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland. "There's
renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready," McCain, who went to Guantanamo last
week with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's "State of
the Union" program. McCain, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and fellow Republican Senator
Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, are working with the Obama administration on plans that could relocate detainees to a
maximum-security prison in Illinois. "We're going to have to look at the whole issue, including giving them more periodic review of
their cases," McCain, of Arizona, said. President Barack Obama has pushed to close Guantanamo, saying in a speech in May it
"has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." The camp holds 166
prisoners picked up in the war on terrorism, most of whom have been held without charges for more than a decade. McCain and
others who favor closing the prison have been unable to overcome opposition in Congress, where many Republicans say the
administration has not offered satisfactory alternatives on what to do with the detainees. Meanwhile, detainees have
complained of abuse and torture, which the administration denies, while rights activists and international observers have
criticized the government's use of the prison. Obama, a Democrat who promised in his 2008 election campaign to close the prison,
pledged last month to lift a ban imposed on transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, one of the core obstacles to clearing out
the detention camp. Of the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer or release, 56 are from Yemen, where al Qaeda has a
dangerous presence. An unknown number of the 80 other prisoners at the camp who are not cleared are Yemeni as well. More than
100 prisoners in the camp have joined a hunger strike to protest the failure to resolve their fate after more than a decade of
detention, and 41 are being force-fed through tubes inserted into their noses and down into their stomachs because they have lost
so much weight.
Link – join chiefs and public support closure
Joyner, 8 (James, founder and editor-in-chief of the weblog Outside The Beltway and a frequent contributor to TCS Daily,
“Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo,” Outside the Beltway, MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2008,
http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/joint_chiefs_chairman_close_guantanamo/, accessed 7/27/13) PE
The chief of the U.S. military said he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he
believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been “pretty damaging” to the
image of the United States. “I’d like to see it shut down,” Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday in an interview with three reporters
who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October. His
visit came two days after the sixth anniversary of the prison’s opening in January 2002. He stressed that a
closure decision was not his to make and that he understands there are numerous complex legal questions the administration
believes would have to be settled first, such as where to move prisoners. The admiral also noted that some of Guantanamo Bay’s
prisoners are deemed high security threats. During a tour of Camp Six, which is a high-security facility holding about 100 prisoners,
Mullen got a firsthand look at some of the cells; one prisoner glared at Mullen through his narrow cell window as U.S. officers
explained to the Joint Chiefs chairman how they maintain almost-constant watch over each prisoner. Mullen, whose previous visit
was in December 2005 as head of the U.S. Navy, noted that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates also have spoken
publicly in favor of closing the prison. But Mullen said he is unaware of any active discussion in the administration about how to do it.
“I’m not aware that there is any immediate consideration to closing Guantanamo Bay,” Mullen said. Asked why he thinks
Guantanamo Bay, commonly dubbed Gitmo, should be closed, and the prisoners perhaps moved to U.S. soil, Mullen said, “More
than anything else it’s been the image — how Gitmo has become around the world , in terms of representing
the United States.” Critics have charged that detainees have been mistreated in some cases and that the legal conditions of their
detentions are not consistent with the rule of law. “I believe that from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that
it’s been pretty damaging,” Mullen said, speaking in a small boat that ferried him to and from the detention facilities across
a glistening bay.
Impact – Coups
US CMR is modeled globally – collapse domestically would result in disruption
globally and simultaneous military coups.
Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, 5/13/1996 (Bill, “ADDRESS BY: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE BILL PERRY AT
KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS” Federal News Service)
Democracy is learned behavior. Many nations today have democracies that exist on paper, but in fact are extremely fragile. And
elections are a necessary but an insufficient condition for a free society. It is also necessary to embed democratic
values in the key institutions of the nation. And I believe that our Defense Department has a key
role to play in this effort. In virtually every new democracy -- in Russia, in the newly free nations of the former
Soviet Union, in Central and Eastern Europe, in South America and the Asian tigers -- the military represents a major
force. In many cases it is the most cohesive institution, and it often contains a large percentage of
the educated elite, and it controls key resources. In short, it is an institution that can either
support democracy or subvert it. And we must recognize that each society moving from
totalitarianism to democracy will be tested at some point by a crisis. It could be an economic crisis, it could
be a backslide on human rights or freedoms, a border or ethnic dispute with a neighboring country. But when such a crisis
occurs, we want the military to play a positive role in resolving the crisis, not a negative role by
fanning the flames of the crisis, or even using the crisis as a pretext for a military coup . In these
new democracies we can choose to ignore this important institution, or we can try to exert a
positive influence. We have chosen the latter. And, believe me, we do have the ability to influence. Indeed, every military
in the world looks to the U.S. armed forces as the model to be emulated. That is a valuable bit of
leverage, and we can put it to use creatively in our preventive defense strategy.
Those coups result in humanitarian crises and nuclear war.
Cimbala, Prof. of polisci @ Penn State, 1998 (Stephen, “The Past and Future of Nuclear Deterrence”, p. 21)
the quality of political regimes and the extent to which they successfully hold their
military establishments accountable will do much to determine whether a world without nuclear
superpowersis more or less stable than the world we are now leaving behind. Unaccountable
praetorian governments holding small arsenals could provide scare moments, visions of hell at
the regional level with ethnic, religious, and national wars abetted by weapons of mass
destruction.
In particular,
Strong civil military relations are key to prevent coups resulting in nuclear war
and terrorism
Todd Sechser, researches South Asian nuclear issues for the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for
International Peace, November 15, 1999, Defense News http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/dn111599.htm
Pakistan’s recent coup highlights the unique dangers of nuclear proliferation in politically
unstable states. Eighteen months after India and Pakistan declared their nuclear capabilities in a series of test explosions,
U.S. government sources now report that they have taken the step of weaponizing their nuclear devices by placing them atop
ballistic missiles. Pakistan’s coup was bloodless, but its decision to build an arsenal raises the prospect that future revolts
could involve nuclear arms. In a country where civilian control of the military is weak, political
chaos could result in a catastrophic nuclear accident . During the Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union
took a number of steps to ensure stringent control over their nuclear arsenals. The "two-man rule" was developed to prevent
unauthorized launches, requiring simultaneous action by two military officers to launch a nuclear-armed missile. Electronic locks
were installed, with only the president and a few select military officers holding the codes. Technical safeguards were developed
to prevent warheads from detonating accidentally. Unfortunately, the U.S. has failed to apply this prudence to emerging nuclear
powers. Fearing that nuclear safety assistance would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's (NPT) credibility,
Washington has shared its safety technology secrets with only its closest European allies. U.S. policy has achieved near-perfect
success in constraining proliferation, but it may aggravate dangers in the few cases where nuclear weapons have spread. New
proliferants, including India and Pakistan, have proved unwilling or unable to develop nuclear safety devices. In a book published
by India’s quasi-governmental Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, Nuclear India, author Kapil Kak argued that "there is no
necessity to replicate the elaborate command and control structures of the West, which we can ill afford." This precarious situation
requires new thinking. The NPT prohibits assistance in weapon production, but legal scholars point out that it does not expressly
forbid aid to safeguard existing weapons. A nuclear war triggered by an inadvertent missile launch would arguably harm nonproliferation efforts more than a program of minimal safety assistance. The United States should evaluate whether its strong
commitment to the NPT can be balanced with weapon safety programs. In particular, the U.S. should consider declassifying early
versions of nuclear safety mechanisms for employment by India and Pakistan. The uniform military support witnessed in Pakistan’s
coup rarely characterizes military upheavals. In a domestic power struggle, nuclear weapons would be
important symbols of domestic authority. Rival factions likely would clash over control of the
arsenal, and the rush to seize warheads could result in a devastating nuclear accident. Fragile
command and control also raises the prospect of theft by terrorists . Safety mechanisms similar to those
employed on U.S. nuclear weapons could help mitigate these risks.
The danger of military coups exists globally
Kohn, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 1997 (Richard "An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military"
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html)
Finally, the most important institution supporting civilian control must be the military itself . The
fundamental assumption behind civilian supremacy is the abstinence by the military from intervention in government and political
life. While worldwide the coup has diminished in the last decade, in many places the threat still
lingers. In still others, the military has the power to make and unmake governments, or to impose or
block policies wholly outside the realm of national security, and certainly on issues of defense. Civilian control
is, by its very nature, nonexistent if the armed forces can use force, or military influence, to turn a government out of power, to
dictate the character of a government or a particular policy, or to act in any way outside those areas of responsibility duly delegated
by higher authority. Even the hint of such extortion, if allowed to persist or to go unpunished,
intimidates civilian officials from exercising their authority, particularly in military affairs .
Therefore civilian control requires a military establishment trained, committed, and dedicated to
political neutrality, that shuns under all circumstances any interference with the constitutional
functioning or legitimate process of government, that identifies itself as the embodiment of the
people and the nation, and that defines into its professionalism unhesitating loyalty to the system
of government and obedience to whomever exercises legal authority. Because of their expertise and role as
the nation's guardian, military leaders in democracies can possess great public credibility, and can use it to limit or undermine
civilian control, particularly during and after successful wars. The difficulty is to define their proper role and to confine their activity
within proper boundaries even when those boundaries are fuzzy and indistinct. The scholar of civil-military relations in Israel,
Yehuda Ben Meir, believes that the military should advise civilians, represent the needs of the military inside the government, but
not advocate military interests or perspectives publicly in such a way as to undermine or circumscribe civilian authority.
Impact – Democracy
CMR is key to democracy
U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs. July 2008 (“Principal of
Democracy: Civil-Military Relations” http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/civil.htm)
Issues of war and peace are the most momentous any nation can face, and at times of crisis, many nations turn to their military for
leadership. Not in democracies. In democracies, questions of peace and war or other threats to national
security are the most important issues a society faces, and thus must be decided by the people,
acting through their elected representatives. A democratic military serves its nation rather than leads it. Military
leaders advise the elected leaders and carry out their decisions. Only those who are elected by the people
have the authority and the responsibility to decide the fate of a nation. This idea of civilian control and authority over
the military is thus, fundamental to democracy. • Civilians need to direct their nation's military and decide issues of
national defense not because they are necessarily wiser than military professionals, but precisely because they are the people's
representatives and as such are charged with the responsibility for making these decisions and remaining accountable for them. •
The military in a democracy exists to protect the nation and the freedoms of its people. It does not represent or support any political
viewpoint or ethnic and social group. Its loyalty is to the larger ideals of the nation, to the rule of law, and to the principle of
democracy itself. • Civilian control assures that a country's values, institutions, and policies are the
free choices of the people rather than the military. The purpose of a military is to defend society,
not define it. • Any democratic government values the expertise and advice of military professionals in reaching policy decisions
about defense and national security. Civilian officials rely upon the military for expert advice on these matters and to carry out the
decisions of the government. But only the elected civilian leadership should make ultimate policy decisions -- which the military then
implements in its sphere. • Military figures may, of course, participate fully and equally in the political life of their country just like any
other citizens - but only as individual voters. Military people must first retire from military service before becoming involved in politics;
armed services must remain separate from politics. The military are the neutral servants of the state, and the guardians of society. •
Ultimately, civilian control of the military ensures that defense and national security issues do not
compromise the basic democratic values of majority rule, minority rights, and freedom of speech,
religion, and due process. It is the responsibility of all political leaders to enforce civilian control
and the responsibility of the military to obey the lawful orders of civilian authorities.
Democracy solves extinction.
Diamond -95 (Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING DEMOCRACY IN THE
1990S,
1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html //)
Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth,
the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats
to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its
provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers
important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war
with one another. They do not aggress against their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic
governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency.
Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten
one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and
more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens,
who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value
legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because,
within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only
reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.
CMR is key to democracy and war prevention
Bruneau, professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School's School of International
Graduate Studies and serves as director of the Center for Civil-Military Relations, 2004 (Thomas C., "Teaching Civil-Military
Relations", eJournal USA: Foreign Policy Agenda, November http://www.ccmr.org/public/library_file_proxy.cfm/lid/5337
The study and teaching of civil-military relations is extremely important because unless civilians
know how to establish and manage these key institutions, real democratic civil-military relations
cannot be achieved. Absent effective institutional controls, a country is simply not a democracy.
Democracy is a value by itself, derivative of the benefits of liberty and freedom, and it is widely
known that democracies create better conditions than other political systems for human progress
and the minimization of conflict and war. By employing a "lessons-learned and best practices approach," civilians can
learn how to control the military, and officers can come to understand that, in the long run, such control benefits them and their
nation.
CMR is necessary to balance out authoritarianism
Richard H. Kohn. 1997. The University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill. Triangle Institute for Security Studies.
American
Diplomacy. “An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military” http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html#a
FOR DEMOCRACY, civilian control -- that is, control of the military by civilian officials elected by the
people -- is fundamental. Civilian control allows a nation to base its values and purposes, its
institutions and practices, on the popular will rather than on the choices of military leaders , whose
outlook by definition focuses on the need for internal order and external security. The military is among the least
democratic institutions in human experience; martial customs and procedures clash by nature
with individual freedom and civil liberty, the highest values in democratic societies. The military is
authoritarian, while democratic society is consensual or participatory. One is hierarchical, the other
essentially egalitarian. One insists on discipline and obedience, subordinating personal needs and desires to the group and to a
mission or goal. The other is individualistic, attempting to achieve the greatest good for the largest number by encouraging the
pursuit of individual needs and desires in the marketplace and in personal lives, each person relying upon their own talents and
ingenuity. One emphasizes order, conformity, harmony, and homogeneity; the other tolerates, even celebrates, disagreement and
diversity of perspective.
Democracy cannot exist without CMR
Richard H. Kohn. 1997. The University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill. Triangle Institute for Security Studies. American
Diplomacy. “An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military” http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html#a
The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation,
rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.
While a country may have civilian control of the military without democracy, it cannot have
democracy without civilian control. In the history and conept, civilian control is simple. Every decision of government, in
peace and in war -- all choices about national security -- are made or approved by officials outside the professional armed forces: in
democracies, by civilian officials elected by the people or appointed by those who are elected. In
principle, civilian control is absolute and all- encompassing. In principle, no decision or
responsibility falls to the military unless expressly or implicitly delegated to it by civilian leaders.
All matters great and small, from the resolve to go to war to the potential punishment prescribed
for a hapless sentry who falls asleep on duty, emanate from civilian authority or are decided by
civilians. Even the decisions of command--the selection of strategy, of what operations to mount and when, and what tactics to
employ, the internal management of the military in peace and in war--derive from civilian authority, falling to uniformed people only
for convenience or out of tradition, or for the greater efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces.
Other countries model our civilian control of the military – that is critical to
democracy promotion
Kohn, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 1997 (Richard "An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military"
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html)
At one time or another in the 20th century alone, civilian
control of the military has been a concern of
democracies like the United States and France, of communist tyrannies such as the Soviet Union and China, of
fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy, and since 1945, of many smaller states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As recently
as ten years ago, military regimes ruled at least seventy of the world's countries. Civilian control
has special significance today more than ever. Throughout the formerly communist world, societies are struggling to
build the institutions for democratic governance. NATO has made civilian control a prerequisite for joining the Alliance. In
encouraging democratization, the United States and other western powers use civilian control of the
military as one measure of progress toward democratic process. The task will still remain to establish civilian
control over national security policy and decision-making. But in the new democracies the challenge is more formidable, for in
attempting to gain supremacy over military affairs, civilians risk provoking the defiance of the military, and without sufficient public
support, perhaps even military intervention. While based mostly on western, and particularly Anglo-American
experience, the analysis applies to any society that practices democratic government, or is
making the transition to government based upon the sovereignty and will of the people . Why Civilian
Control Matters FOR DEMOCRACY, civilian control -- that is, control of the military by civilian officials elected by the people -- is
fundamental. Civilian control allows a nation to base its values and purposes, its institutions and practices, on the popular will rather
than on the choices of military leaders, whose outlook by definition focuses on the need for internal order and external security.
Impact – Heg
Impact – CMR leads to democratization in the military – increases military
effectiveness
Bruneau and Cristiana, 8 (Thomas C., Security Affairs Department, Naval Postgraduate School, FLORINA, lecturer
at the United States Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and a PhD candidate researching civil -military relations, “Towards a New
Conceptualization of Democratization and Civil-Military Relations,” Online, http://iisdb.stanford.edu/evnts/5541/Bruneau_final_file.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Although it may seem counter-intuitive, increased democratic control can improve effectiveness in military,
intelligence, and police forces. Based on historical research, Deborah Avant concludes, ‘Having more civilians
control the army made it easier, not harder, for the army to maintain its focus.’56 While too much direction and
oversight obviously can hamper security services’ capabilities or reveal sources and methods in intelligence, implementing ‘good’
control, i.e., instituting control and oversight in a way that provides top-level direction and general oversight
guidance, as opposed to malfeasance or cronyism, leads to improved effectiveness. For example, one of the few
acknowledged successes in US civil military relations, the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization
Act, both reinforced democratic civilian control and mandated ‘jointness’ for the military services in the
United States. Although some interoperability issues certainly remain, US forces have been more effective at fulfilling their various
roles and missions since this level of democratic control was enacted. Operation Desert Storm, operations in the former Yugoslavia
and Afghanistan, and the initial combat success in Iraq bear witness to these improvements. Romania provides a good example of
how democratic control can improve effectiveness in an intelligence organization, which is positive for legitimacy of the government
(and facilitated NATO membership and European Union accession). As Romania made its transition to democracy, its intelligence
structure consisted of as many as nine agencies with little oversight, direction or clear roles and missions. As both the executive and
legislative branches implemented control mechanisms, the intelligence community in Romania began to improve. For example, the
executive branch created the National Supreme Defence Council (CSAT), which organizes and coordinates all intelligence
activities.57 The CSAT monitors and validates national security and military strategies, as well as intelligence products from the
agencies. Similarly, legislative control and oversight of intelligence agencies is exercised through specialized parliamentary
committees. Together, the CSAT and parliament have reduced the Romanian intelligence community from nine organizations to six;
improved recruitment, training and professionalism; and clarified the mission of each agency. As a result of these measures, the
Romanian intelligence apparatus is both more effective and more efficient.
CMR is key to effectiveness of military and hegemony
Richard Kohn 11/4/1999 (Kohn is a professor of history and peace, was, and defense at the University of North Carolina , US
commission on National Security, FDCH, p. 18,
http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has308020.000/has308020_0f.htm)
the security of a nation depends not only
on its human and material resources but on the ability of the state to translate those into military
power and apply that power in ways appropriate to defend the country's existence, territory,
values, and interests. Therefore we believe it essential to consider some of the domestic factors that relate to national
security. My focus is on the relationship of the military to society. Civil-military relations are critical to national
defense. If the armed forces diverge in attitude or understanding beyond what is expected of the
military profession in a democratic society, have less contact, grow less interested in or
knowledgeable about each other, the consequences could be significant. Each could lose
confidence in the other. Recruiting could be damaged. Military effectiveness could be harmed.
The resources devoted to national defense could decline below what is adequate. Civil-military
cooperation could deteriorate, with impact upon the ability of the United States to use military
forces to maintain the peace or support American foreign policy.
Among the assumptions underlying the report ''New World Coming'' is that
Impact – Nigeria
Nigeria models us stance on cmr
AFRICA NEWS, 3/27/02
United States Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Howard Jeter, yesterday in Abuja called on the defence
establishment in the country to commence dialogue on the building of a healthy civil-military
relationship. Speaking in Abuja at the on-going seminar on the "Role of the military in a democracy", Jeter said that the
United States had found it extremely useful to have civilians work for the military services. He
pointed out that in the effort to build a strong and healthy civil-military realtionship, "we have serving
military officers working in various capacities in civil institutions like the legislature and the
executive". According to him such interface of civil-military relationship enables the system to
benefit from the expertise and operational understanding of both sides in policy formulation.
"Through these exchanges, the civilian agencies are better informed, the military and the
department of defence are better informed and decision making is easier," he said.
Cmr in nigeria is key to promote democracy
BBC, 8/5/02
"It must be borne in mind that the Western
Regional election violence (Operation wetie) of 1965-66, played a key
role in the military coup of January 1999," he noted. He said that the rule of law must be strictly
adhered to, while the electorate on their part, must tolerate the political, ethnic, and religion differences of others, since
democracy legitimizes diversity and protects and promotes alternative options , especially the views of
the minority. While advising that the fundamental human rights of citizens should be respected, Ogomudia said that the interest of
the military in the area of welfare, training, procurement and maintenance of equipment, release and payment of salaries, and
provision of barracks accommodation, amongst other things, should be taken care of. There is also the need for the
holding and organization of regular dialogue between the political class and military leaders in
order to promote transparency and ensure mutual confidence, he stressed. Ogomudia said: "It is in the
interest of the nation, for the growth and consolidation of democratic culture and ethos that civilmilitary relations should be developed in all fronts and ensured to be cordial at all times.
Nigerian democracy prevents african wars
BBC NEWS, 5/25/2K
While still celebrating the new freedoms associated with the restoration of democracy, Nigerians
have been forced to think deeply about the country's future. In most parts of the country there is
now a clamour for a greater devolution of power to the regions, and to the many ethnic groups
which were carelessly thrown together by the British colonialists to form modern-day Nigeria. Since May
1999, several ethnic and pressure groups have emerged or gained prominence in Nigeria. They include
Odua Peoples Congress (fighting for the south-western Oduduwa States); Arewa Peoples Congress (protecting the interest of
ethnic northern Nigeria) and Middle Belt Forum (canvasing for their geographical identity which is distinct from northern Nigeria).
“It’s as if there is no cartilage between the bones for as long as we are thrown together in this way
the painful friction is bound to continue” argues Ayo Ube, a leading Lagos human rights activist.
And african conflict goes nuclear
Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 11-18-02,
http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html
The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the
country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other
countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into
a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather
than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range.
Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention
in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there
than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India,
Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside
involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African
nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in
the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and
some people love to go fishing.
Impact – Pakistan
US CMR is key to preventing Pakistani collapse
Barton, Codirector Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project and Senior Adviser, International Security Program at the CSIS and
Unger, fellow and policy director of the Foreign Assistance Reform project at Brookings April 2009. (Frederick and Noam,
“civil-military relations, fostering development, and expanding civilian capacity ,” http://csis.org/publication/civil-military-relationsfostering-development-and-expanding-civilian-capacity)
The security rationale for stability and development in poor and fragile states is based on the understanding that strengthening the
economy of states and ensuring social equity are in the short and long term interests of the United States. Stable states pose
the United States with far fewer security challenges than their weak and fragile counterparts .
Indeed, stable states with healthy economies offer the United States opportunities for trade and represent potential partners in the
fields of security and development. In contrast, weak and failing states pose serious challenges to the security
of United States, including terrorism, drug production, money laundering and people smuggling . In
addition, state weakness has frequently proven to have the propensity to spread to neighboring states, which in time can destabilize
entire regions. While the group acknowledged that the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan are particular in scope and complexity (and
may not be repeated in the near future by the U.S.), participants broadly concurred that the lessons of these challenges are that the
United States must improve and expand its stabilization and development capabilities. In particular, cases such as Pakistan
and Nigeria, huge countries with strategic importance, make clear that a military response to many
internal conflicts will be severely limited. As such, increased emphasis on civilian capacity within
the U.S. government and civil-military relations in general, will greatly improve the United States’
ability to respond to such crises in the future.
Pakistani coup leads to India-Pakistan nuclear war
The Washington Post, 10/21/2001
The prospect of Pakistan being taken over by Islamic extremists is especially worrisome because
it possesses nuclear weapons. The betting among military strategists is that India, another nuclear power, would not
stand idly by, if it appeared that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal were about to fall into the hands
of extremists. A preemptive action by India to destroy Pakistan's nuclear stockpile could provoke
a new war on the subcontinent. The U.S. military has conducted more than 25 war games involving a
confrontation between a nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, and each has resulted in nuclear
war, said retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert on strategic games. Having both the United States and India fighting
Muslims would play into the hands of bin Laden, warned Mackubin Owens, a strategist at the Naval War College in Newport,
R.I. "He could point out once again that this is the new crusade," Owens said. The next step that worries experts is the regional
effect of turmoil in Pakistan. If its government fell, the experts fear, other Muslim governments friendly to the United States, such
as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, might follow suit. "The ultimate nightmare is a pan-Islamic regime that possesses both oil and
nuclear weapons," said Harlan Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Ullman argued
that the arrival of U.S. troops in Pakistan to fight the anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan could inadvertently help bin Laden achieve
his goal of sparking an anti-American revolt in the country. Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston
University, said it is possible "that we are sliding toward a summer-of-1914 sequence of events" -- when a cascading series of
international incidents spun out of control and led to World War I.
Pakistan insurgency causes nuclear volleys at Kashmir
Kagan, Resident Scholar at AEI and O’Hanlon, Senior Fellow @ the Brooking Institution, 11/18/2007 (Frederick W.
and Michael, “Pakistan’s Collapse, Our Problem” New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?_r=1)
AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the
United States simply could not stand by as a
nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces
from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think — now — about our feasible
military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that. We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistan’s officer corps
and ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state
than in exporting terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highest bidder . But then again, Americans felt
similarly about the shah’s regime in Iran until it was too late. Moreover, Pakistan’s intelligence services contain
enough sympathizers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on
seizing the disputed province of Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries. The
most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that
allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over
outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani
military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as
a state sponsor of terrorism. All possible military initiatives to avoid those possibilities are daunting. With 160 million
people, Pakistan is more than five times the size of Iraq. It would take a long time to move large numbers of
American forces halfway across the world. And unless we had precise information about the
location of all of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or
using Special Forces to destroy them. The task of stabilizing a collapsed Pakistan is beyond the means of the United
States and its allies. Rule-of-thumb estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of
this size. Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need
the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces. One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of
preventing Pakistan’s nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani
nationalists cherish these assets, it is unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy
them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and
possibly to move the material to a safer place. For the United States, the safest bet would be shipping the material
to someplace like New Mexico; but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. More likely, we would have to
settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up
(and watched over) by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a
decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition. A second,
broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the
face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the
leadership. This would require a sizable combat force — not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and
moderate Muslim nations. Even if we were not so committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western powers would need months to get
the troops there. Fortunately, given the longstanding effectiveness of Pakistan’s security forces, any process of state decline
probably would be gradual, giving us the time to act. So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do?
The most likely directive would be to help Pakistan’s military and security forces hold the country’s center — primarily the region
around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south. We would also have to be wary of
internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces. Pro-American moderates could well win a fight against extremist
sympathizers on their own. But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country
containing crucial nuclear materials. The task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be
a priority for our troops. If a holding operation in the nation’s center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order
in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan
by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistan’s tribal and frontier regions. The great paradox
of the post-cold war world is that we are both safer, day to day, and in greater peril than before.
There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry; today it
is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and
diplomatically prepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be the next big test.
Impact – Readiness
Cooperation between civilians and the military is key to troop morale and
readiness—Iraq proves
Owens, associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, 2005 (Mackubin
Thomas, “Judging Rumsfeld” National Review http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200501050715.asp)
In applying agency theory to civil-military relations, Feaver
acknowledges the unsuitability of the term
"shirking" when describing the action of the military agent when it pursues its own preference
rather than those of the civilian principal. But he contends that the alternatives are even less suitable. Feaver
argues that shirking by the military takes many forms. The most obvious form is disobedience, but
it also includes foot dragging and leaks to the press designed to undercut policy or individual policy-makers.
Shirking as foot-dragging provides an important bureaucratic context for Rumsfeld's decision to
recommend invading Iraq when he did, rejecting the call for a larger initial ground force or to wait for
the Fourth Infantry Division to redeploy to the south after Turkey refused to permit the opening of a northern front. Rumsfeld
believed that civilian control of the military had eroded during the Clinton administration: If a
service didn't want to do something — as in the Balkans in the 1990s — it would simply overstate the force
requirements. Accordingly, the secretary and others in the Pentagon interpreted the Army's call for a larger force as one more
example of what they perceived as foot dragging. It is clear that Rumsfeld is guilty of errors of judgment regarding
both transformation and the conduct of the Iraq war. With regard to the former, his "business" approach to
transformation is potentially risky. As Fred Kagan has observed, Rumsfeld's approach stresses
an economic concept of efficiency at the expense of military and political effectiveness . But war is far
more than a mere targeting drill. As the Iraq war has demonstrated, the destruction of the "target set" and the
resulting military success does not translate automatically into the achievement of the political
goals for which the war was fought in the first place. But the U.S. military does need to transform
and, as suggested above, the actual practice of transformation in the Rumsfeld Pentagon has
been flexible and adaptive, not doctrinaire. With regard to the Iraq war, Rumsfeld's original position regarding the Iraq war was much more optimistic than the facts on
the ground have warranted. But he has eventually acknowledged changes in the character of the war and adapted to them. In addition, Rumsfeld's critics have been no more
When it comes to
civil-military relations, Rumsfeld's attempt to reassert civilian control of the military is certainly
proper, but there is a real danger that the cost of Rumsfeld's approach will be a dispirited and
demoralized uniformed military. Right now, the perception among officers is that Rumsfeld wants
to surround himself with "yes-men" and that dissent will not be tolerated. This is a recipe for
disaster. As I wrote in NRO in July, Rumsfeld needs to take a cue from Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and other great
military leaders of democracies. By all means, he should challenge, cajole, probe, and question his uniformed
military — and then challenge them again. But he should also encourage true dialogue, in the
hope of achieving a dynamic, creative tension within the Pentagon on everything from war
fighting to transformation. This is the path to healthy civil-military relations — and to true civilian
control of the military.
prescient than he. We should not be surprised. Again, as Clausewitz reminds us, war takes place in the realm of chance and uncertainty.
Relations are key to well planned and effective military strategies
Peter D. Feaver June 1999 (Feaver (Ph. D., Harvard) is the professor of political science and public policy at Duke University
and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 2: 211-241,
http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/PoliticalScience/pfeaver )
It follows that, in a democracy, the
hierarchy of de jure authority favors civilians over the military, even in
cases where the underlying distribution of de facto power favors the military. Regardless of how strong the military
is, civilians are supposed to remain the political masters. While decision making may in fact be politics as usual—the exercise of
power in pursuit of ends—it is politics within the context of a particular normative conception of whose will should prevail. Civilian competence in the general sense extends even
beyond their competence in a particular sense; that is, civilians are morally and politically competent to make the decisions even if they do not possess the relevant technical
competence in the form of expertise (Dahl 1985). This is the core of the democratic alternative to Plato's philosopher king. Although the expert may understand the issue better,
In the civil-military context, this means
that the military may be best able to identify the threat and the appropriate responses to that
threat for a given level of risk, but only the civilian can set the level of acceptable risk for society .
the expert is not in a position to determine the value that the people attach to different issue outcomes .
The military can propose the level of armaments necessary to have a certain probability of successful defense against our enemies,
The military can describe in some
detail the nature of the threat posed by a particular enemy, but only the civilian can decide
whether to feel threatened, and if so, how or even whether to respond. The military assesses the
risk, the civilian judges it. The democratic imperative insists that this precedence applies even if civilians are woefully
underequipped to understand the technical issues at stake. Regardless of how superior the military view of a
situation may be, the civilian view trumps it. Civilians should get what they ask for, even if it is not
what they really want. In other words, civilians have a right to be wrong .
but only the civilian can say what probability of success society is willing to underwrite.
Increased civilian control improves the effectiveness of the military—empirically
true
Owens, associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College Oct. 2007 (Mackubin
Thomas, “Salute and Disobey: Failure’s Many Father’s”, Foreign Affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86511/richard-b-myers-richard-h-kohn-mackubin-thomas-owens-lawrence-j-korbmichael-c-desch/salute-and-disobey.html)
Desch is correct to observe that there is a troubling rift between the uniformed U.S. military and civilian
leaders (although it is not as great as he suggests). But Desch errs when he blames most of the current
problems on the Bush administration in general and on former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in particular. In
fact, the uniformed military deserves a significant share of the blame as well. Desch charges the
administration with willfully ignoring military advice, initiating the Iraq war with too small a force, ignoring the need for preparations
for postconflict stabilization, failing to foresee the insurgency, and not adapting once things started to go wrong. This criticism
is predicated on two questionable assumptions. The first is that soldiers deserve to have a voice
in making policy regarding the use of the military -- indeed, that they have the right to insist that their views be
adopted. The second is that the judgment of soldiers is inherently superior to that of civilians when
it comes to military affairs -- and that in times of war, accordingly, civilians should defer to military expertise. Both of
these assumptions are questionable at best. They are also at odds with the principles and practice
of U.S. civil-military relations, which subordinate the uniformed military to civilian authority even
in what might seem to be the purely military realm. As Eliot Cohen demonstrates in Supreme Command, a book
that Desch cites disapprovingly, successful wartime presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, "interfered"
extensively and frequently with military operations. Desch's first assumption rests on a misreading of McMaster's Dereliction of Duty.
Many serving officers believe that Dereliction of Duty concludes that the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have
more openly voiced their opposition to the Johnson administration's strategy of gradualism in
Vietnam and then resigned rather than carry out the policy. But in fact, this is a serious
misinterpretation that has reinforced the increasingly widespread belief that officers should be
advocates of particular policies rather than simply serving in their traditional advisory roles.
Desch's second assumption -- that soldiers have better judgment than civilian policymakers on
military affairs -- is called into question by a review of the historical record. Lincoln constantly
prodded George McClellan to take the offensive in Virginia in 1862, while McClellan constantly
whined about insufficient forces. During World War II, there were many differences between Roosevelt and his military
advisers. General George Marshall, the greatest soldier-statesman since George Washington, opposed arms shipments to the
United Kingdom in 1940 and argued for a cross-channel invasion before the United States was ready. History has
vindicated Lincoln and Roosevelt. Many in the military blame the U.S. defeat in Vietnam on
civilians. But in fact, the operational approach in Vietnam was forged by the uniformed military.
General William Westmoreland adopted the counterproductive strategy of emphasizing attrition of Peoples'
Army of Vietnam forces in a "war of the big battalions" -- sweeps through remote jungle areas in an effort to destroy the enemy with
superior firepower. By the time his successor could adopt a more fruitful approach, it was too late.
During the planning for Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91, General Norman Schwarzkopf, then the head of U.S.
Central Command, called for a frontal assault against Iraqi positions in southern Kuwait followed by a drive toward Kuwait City.
That plan would probably not have achieved the foremost military objective of the ground war: the
destruction of the three divisions of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard. Accordingly, the civilian leadership rejected it
and ordered Schwarzkopf to return to the drawing board. The revised plan was far more
imaginative and effective.
Collapse of CMR decreases readiness
Peter Feaver May 1996 (Feaver (Ph. D., Harvard) is the professor of political science and public policy at Duke University and
Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, “Delegation, Monitoring, and Civilian Control
of the Military: Agency Theory and American Civil-Military Relations”, project on U.S. Post Cold-War Civil Military Relations,
http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/publications/workingpapers/civil_military/no4.htm)
Most political applications of the principal-agent framework have concerned domestic issues. The
special concern at the
heart of the civil-military relationship -- controlling the use of deadly force -- introduces peculiar twists that
affect the decisionmaking calculus of both principals and agents. The first and most obvious distinctive feature is that the stakes are
much higher. If an elected representative turns up a cropper, the damage to the polity (even with the highest elected office) is
bounded. Lousy political agents can commit many sins of omission and commission but they are
hard-pressed to bring down the republic. Failure to get the military agency problem right can
result in one of two grave disasters: the military agent might turn on society and rob it of its
political freedom or the military agent may fail on the battlefield and leave the polity vulnerable to
conquest by external enemies. In almost all cases, human lives will be lost in the process. The cost of failure, the
price of trial and error, is paralyzingly prohibitive. The very existence of the state is at stake and a catastrophic
failure can result in the extermination of the polity that initiated the agency relationship. Of course, the fate of the republic
does not hang on every military issue and there are many mundane matters where the stakes
seem small. In general, however, the consequences of failure are profound and this will cast a
shadow over the actors' decisionmaking.
Good civil-military relations and public support are key to military effectiveness
Kohn, Prof. of History and Chair of the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina, and
Feaver ,Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies,
2001 (Richard H and Peter D. “Civilians and Soldiers”)
To summarize, we have demonstrated that there is a military and civilian gap, at least when we compare higher-ranking elite military
officers and civilian elites. On some measures, elite military officers appear far more similar to the mass
public in their pattern of confidence in major American institutions than do the presumed leaders
of those institutions, the civilian elites, This should alert us to subtleties underlying confidence in the military. In the
rest of this chapter, we provide some exploratory examinations of how the notions of "confidence" may be profitably unpacked. The
analysis thus far suggests that confidence in the military may not be as solid and stable as the
commonly reported Gallup results imply. People who have little or no contact with the military express lower levels of
confidence in the military. The effect is sharpest at the elite level, where an absence of contact with the military can have a large
impact on expressed confidence, Nevertheless, majorities even among the least pro-military groups
express confidence in the military. Thus, to a certain extent, the conventional wisdom is correct:
American civil-military relations are blessed by the remarkable degree of confidence the military
enjoys from the mass and elite public. But does this confidence extend beyond a mere appreciation that the military is
capable of doing what it is askedto do? Is there an underlying sense of alienation between the groups, acknowledged or latent? Is
there a consensus on how civil-military relations affects military effectiveness or on the day-today workings of civilian control? To answer these questions, we analyze civilian and military
opinion across a broader range of topics.
Impact – Terrorism
CMR key to prevent terrorism
Cronin, Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, 9/19/2008 (Patrick M., “Irregular Warfare: New Challenges for
Civil-Military Relations” Small Wars Journal http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/09/print/irregular-warfare-new-challeng/)
The war that “we are in and must win” (to paraphrase Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) pits us against
nonstate groups that seek to advance extremist agendas through violence. Accordingly, irregular
warfare will be the dominant form of conflict among adversaries in the early years of the 21st
century. To succeed in these messy and profoundly political wars, the United States needs a
framework that appropriately and effectively balances the relationships between civilian and
military leaders and makes the best use of their unique and complementary portfolios.
US will retaliate – risks nuclear conflagration
Speice, 2006 (Patrick F., Jr. "Negligence and nuclear nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability barrier to bilateral U.S.Russian nonproliferation assistance programs." William and Mary Law Review 47.4 (Feb 2006): 1427(59). Expanded Academic
ASAP)
The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass
destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be
devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. (49) Moreover, there would be immense political
pressure in the United States to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons,
massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear
conflict. (50) In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and material from Russia will reduce the
barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. (51) This proliferation
will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, (52) as well as increase the likelihood
that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. (53)
Cuba Relations Add-On
Gitmo Internal
Returning Guantanamo is a vital prerequisite to any US Cuban relations and a
black stain on its relationship with Latin America
Rueckert 13
Phineas Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs
“GUANTÁNAMO BAY: CLOSING THE GTMO DETENTION CENTER IS A WILTING OLIVE BRANCH TO CUBA AND THE REST
OF LATIN AMERICA” Council on Hemispheric Affairs June 4, 2013
In his annual counterterrorism speech on May 23, President Barack Obama again vowed to revamp efforts to close the detention center at the Guantánamo Bay naval base in
casts the United States as a nation that “flouts the rule of law
GTMO
Cuba (GTMO). The
detention center, Obama stated,
”
and costs $350 million USD per year to maintain. He also called for congress to lift the moratorium on the transfer of 56 detainees from GTMO to their homes in Yemen and
facilitate other transfers to “third countries.” [1] While the Obama administration has revealed that 86 of the 166 prisoners at GTMO have been cleared for release or transfer to
other prisons, political pressure from obstructionist conservatives in the United States has prevented any action from taking place, leaving these detainees in a state of
The
continued operation of the GTMO detention center is a shameful indictment of a backward and often
hypocritical foreign policy, in which the United States legitimizes leaving Cuba on the State
Sponsors of Terrorism List and simultaneously operates a morally objectionable detention center with a long history of human rights violations. While
closing down the detention center and transferring detainees would be a step in the right direction for the Obama
prolonged limbo. Detainees staged a hunger strike this spring—to which the United States responded not by changing its policy, but by force-feeding the prisoners.¶
administration in terms of improving its poor human rights record, there is a larger issue at hand that has been ignored by both the administration and mainstream media outlets.
naval base that represents the imperialist past of the United
States in Cuba and the rest of Latin America; this base will remain operational even if Obama succeeds at closing the detention center.
Ultimately, if Obama truly wanted to improve relations with Latin America , through a change of policy on Guantánamo, he
would not only close the GTMO detention center, but also return the entire naval base to Cuba.¶ The
In addition to being a detention center, Guantánamo Bay houses a
“Legal Black Hole”¶ While the GTMO detention center opened in 2002 as a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the U.S. war in Afghanistan, the
Guantánamo Bay naval base has been under U.S. control since the signing of the Platt Amendment in 1901. The amendment gave the United States the right to intervene in
Cuban affairs for the “preservation of Cuban independence” and legitimized the use of the Guantánamo Bay naval base by permitting the United States to buy or lease the land
from Cuba.[2] By taking advantage of a weak and powerless Cuban state just emerging from a difficult war and beguiling Cuba into complying with the treaties through an offer
of trade subsidies, the Platt Amendment and the Cuban-American Treaty (1903) that followed were one-sided “agreements” that failed to take into account the needs of the
The United States imposed the Platt Amendment on Cuba during the height of its
imperialist strategy in order to “protect American commercial interests—especially investments in
sugar—against Cuban labor radicalism.”[3] Rather than preserving Cuban independence, the Platt Amendment and the open-ended lease of
Cuban population.
Guantánamo Bay to the United States served to fortify a U.S. military presence on the island, despite the protestations of an unwilling host.¶ Source:
www.radioguantanamo.icrt.cu¶ Since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the Cuban government has repeatedly questioned the legality of the United States holding of Guantánamo
Bay and unsuccessfully demanded that the base be closed and reverted to Cuba. The Guantánamo Public Memory Project calls the Guantánamo Bay naval base “a legal black
the Platt Amendment
hole” because of the controversial wording of
. While the amendment granted Cuba “ultimate sovereignty” over Guantánamo, it
simultaneously gave the United States “complete jurisdiction and control over the territory.”[4] This wording resulted in a situation in which the United States fully dictated which
laws applied to Guantánamo, and therefore, until the landmark ruling of Boumediene v. Bush in 2008, was able to legitimize its denial of constitutional rights to detainees. It
also meant that the United States could decide when, if ever, it wants to return the base to Cuba—
undercutting Cuba’s ability to exercise its ultimate sovereignty over the land .¶ Obama’s Failed Attempts to Close
the GTMO Detention Center¶ Since his 2007 presidential campaign, President Obama has maintained that he intends to close the GTMO detention center, but was only able to
make small steps toward that goal during his first presidential term. When, in 2009, Obama signed executive orders to close the Guantánamo Bay detention center within a
year, as well as to establish an interagency task force to review his administration’s detention policies and individual cases of Guantánamo detainees, it appeared that he might
put the issue behind him. However, he quickly ran into trouble regarding how to try prisoners convicted for their participation in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks without
inflaming U.S. public opinion. Furthermore, his initiative to transfer detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois backfired in May 2010, when the House Armed
Services Committee unanimously passed a defense measure that prohibited the creation of detention centers in the United States.¶ Source: www.commondreams.org¶ Since
his reelection in November 2012, Obama has re-engaged with the possibility of closing the Guantánamo Bay detention center—in part due to political pressure from liberals and
human rights activists. A hunger strike by Guantánamo Bay detainees who have been held indefinitely at the detention center (despite many being cleared for release) came to
a head in April this year, and is probably what prompted Obama to more forcefully address the issue in his counterterrorism speech.¶ According to Michael Crowley’s article,
“Can Obama End the War on Terror?,” published last month in TIME Magazine, “Obama has an obviously sincere desire to bring the war against Al-Qaeda to a close and close
the books on Guantánamo, however, he also lacks the power to make these things happen on his own.”[5] He will need congress to overturn the law preventing the transfer of
nearly 50 detainees who have been held indefinitely at Guantánamo to prisons in the United States. COHA Research Fellow Keith Bolender, who has written extensively on
Cuba, believes, “Obama does want to shut down the center, but will continue to find it difficult to come to a compromise with the Republicans.”¶ If Obama Closes the GTMO
Detention Center, So What?¶ For many people in the United States, including President Obama, closing Guantánamo Bay means shutting down the detention center but
leaving the naval base open. However, closing only the detention center would do little to improve the relationship between Cuba and the United States. Timothy Ashby, a
Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Commerce has observed:¶ I do not think closure of the
If the entire base were shut down and handed back to
Cuba, I think the Cuban government would react favorably and see it as a goodwill gesture . But that will
GTMO center would have any impact on bilateral relations with Cuba.
not happen even though the actual base is an unnecessary expense and serves no more of a strategic purpose than the detention center.¶ For Obama, closing the
Guantánamo Bay detention center has more to do with improving the image of the United States in the world than it does with improving U.S. relations with Cuba or other Latin
American countries and the Caribbean. As Obama decried in his May 23 speech, the Guantánamo Bay detention center is an unnecessary moral and financial burden on the
United States. But the naval base itself, which Obama has never suggested closing, still serves a strategic purpose of projecting U.S. military power in the Western Hemisphere.
Washington’s cursory discourse concerning Guantánamo Bay—which neglects to consider reverting the naval base to Cuba as an option—suggests that its imperialist
the continued presence of U.S. troops at Guantánamo—regardless of whether or not those
shows that Washington is not ready to step down from its traditional strategic/militaristic position in Latin
inclinations have not fully abated.¶ Broadly speaking,
troops are there to detain terrorists—
improve relations with Cuba . Bolender argued that:¶ Guantánamo is a symbol of the imperialistic
past [of the United States] towards Latin America, and in particular Cuba. The detention center should be shut down,
America or
those not charged freed immediately, and the rest, if any are truly guilty, sent to the United States. The bigger situation is that the base itself, forced upon Cuba more than 100
U.S. citizens] have no right to be there, except under a one-sided treaty that the
Cuban government has long condemned. That would certainly improve relations between the two
years ago, should be returned to Cuba. [
countries , but the Americans have made it clear they have no intention of returning what rightfully belongs to Cuba.¶ Obama’s failure to address the imperial history of
the Guantánamo Bay naval base or respond to (let alone acknowledge) the Cuban government’s pleas for the naval base to be returned to Cuba are symbolic of Washington’s
Washington’s
maintenance of the naval base in Guantánamo remains an obstacle to developing a policy of
mutual respect in U.S.-Latin American relations.
unflinching Latin America policy. Even as it shows faint signs of winding down its global war on terror—as evidenced in Obama’s speech—
Impact – Drugs
The US Cuban relationship is critical to check drug trafficking in the Caribbean
Lee 9
Rensselaer Lee an authority on international crime and narcotics and nuclear security issues. A Stanford Ph.D., he is president of
Global Advisory Services, Senior Fellow at the Forgien Policy Research Institute -- Testimony before the House of Representatives
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs “Cuba, Drugs, and U.S.Cuban Relations” April 29, 2009 https://www.fpri.org/docs/alt/testimony.20090429.lee_.cubadrugs.pdf
This is the story of a Caribbean state that at one time was deeply (if selectively) involved ¶ in the international drug trade, becoming
now a state for which suppressing the drug traffic seems to be a foremost national priority. This apparent
transformation and ¶ accompanying tectonic shifts in the international security environment, have some ¶ important
implications for U.S.-Cuban relations ¶ The United States and Cuba have a strong mutual interest
in closing off trafficking routes ¶ in the western Caribbean and in preventing attempts by Mexican and South American ¶
cocaine mafias to set up shop in Cuba proper. Yet they have not entered into a formal ¶ agreement to fight
drugs – even though Havana maintains such agreements with at least ¶ 32 other countries – and what cooperation exists occurs
episodically, on a case-by-case ¶ basis. Washington and Havana need to engage more fully on the issue,
deploying ¶ intelligence and interdiction assets to disrupt smuggling networks through and
around ¶ Cuba. Washington hitherto has shied away from a deeper relationship, fearing that it ¶
would lead to a political opening and confer a measure of legitimacy on the Castro ¶ regime. Yet current
strategic realities in the region and Havana's own willingness to ¶ engage in such a relationship, as well as impending leadership changes in Cuba, argue for ¶ rethinking these
concerns, even in the absence of formal diplomatic ties. . ¶ Cuba's relations with the international drug trade are historically complex and ¶ controversial and deserve some
mention here. The Castro regime, on its accession to ¶ power in 1959, largely wiped out what had been a flourishing domestic market for ¶ cocaine and marijuana that was
closely associated with the mob-run Havana casinonightclub scene. Despite this achievement, opportunistic ties with foreign drugtrafficking organizations apparently persisted.
Allegations of Cuban state complicity in ¶ the drug trade date to the early 1960s, although hard evidence of a Cuban drug ¶ connection did not surface until the 1980s. ¶ Such
cozy relationships reached a height in the late 1980s, when a group of Cuban ¶ Ministry of Interior officials, led by MC department head Antonio de la Guardia, together ¶ with
representatives of Colombia’s Medellin cartel coordinated some 15 successful ¶ 2¶ smuggling operations through Cuba to the United States which – according to Cuban ¶
officials – moved a total of six tons of cocaine and earned the conspirators $3.4 million. ¶ Also complicit in these activities, though tangentially, was Division General Arnaldo ¶
Ochoa Sanchez, a decorated hero of the Cuban revolution. An Ochoa emissary met with ¶ Medellin cartel chief Pablo Escobar in 1988 to discuss a cocaine-smuggling venture
and ¶ also a proposal to set up a cocaine laboratory in Cuba. The discussions also touched on ¶ another topic – and this is what Escobar really wanted most – the transfer of
some ¶ surface-to-air missiles to the cartel in Colombia. The trafficking schemes never ¶ materialized, but in early 1990 the Colombian National Police discovered an assortment
¶ of 10 ground-to-air and air-to-air missiles of French manufacture (apparently originating ¶ in Angola) in a Bogotá residence belonging to an assassin employed by the Medellin
¶ cartel. ¶ The Ochoa-de la Guardia machinations and the subsequent trials, executions, and purges ¶ marked the beginning of a watershed in the Cuban government’s policies
toward illegal ¶ drugs. In subsequent years the regime made a visible and mostly successful effort to ¶ distance itself from the international drug trade, setting up new and
elaborate drugfighting institutions, establishing narcotics cooperation agreements with European and ¶ other Latin American states, and adopting an increasingly prohibitionist
approach toward ¶ the sale and use of drugs inside Cuba. (This, incidentally, contrasts sharply with the ¶ harm-reduction approach being advocated by three former Latin
American presidents.) ¶ This policy shift was attributable to three main factors: ¶ 1. First, the corruption scandals of the late 1980s brought home to Cuba’s leaders the ¶ reality
that in Cuba – as elsewhere in Latin America – the illegal drug trade could ¶ spawn independent centers of power, posing potential challenges to the existing ¶ political order.
Generally speaking, the Ochoa-de la Guardia conspirators tended ¶ to favor the liberalizing tendencies that at the time were occurring elsewhere in ¶ the Soviet bloc, and Castro
must have wanted to prevent the emergence of a ¶ narco-funded reformist movement that could weaken the totalitarian ¶ underpinnings of the Cuban system. ¶ 2. Second, the
disintegration of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc eliminated ¶ the protective mantle of Soviet patronage that had sustained Cuba for years, and ¶ thus forced Cuba to
reorient its entire foreign economic posture to seek vastly ¶ improved trade, investment, and tourism ties with the West. To do this, Cuba ¶ needed to burnish its international
image and to project an aura of respectability. ¶ This meant taking visible domestic and foreign policy steps to try to erase the ¶ drug stigma acquired in earlier years. ¶ 3. The
third factor was the emergence in the 1990s of a domestic consumer market ¶ for cocaine, crack, and marijuana, which was propelled by the increasing inflow ¶ of dollars from
the tourist economy and by remittances sent from Cuban ¶ communities abroad to their relatives on the island. In what appeared to be a ¶ replay of the 1950s, drugs circulated
freely in Havana’s nightclubs, bordellos, ¶ streets, and hotels. The internal drug market was never large, at least in relation to ¶ what we see here in the United States, but it
alarmed Cuban authorities because it ¶ pre-supposed the development of a sphere of criminality outside the regime’s ¶ effective control. ¶ An interesting question is: Where did
all of these drugs come from? ¶ The main source, at least according to Cuban official statistics, were so-called “recalos,” ¶ bulk packages of cocaine and marijuana that are
dumped at sea, and then carried by wind ¶ and tides to Cuba’s shores – the detritus of failed rendezvous between Colombian planes ¶ or Jamaican marijuana carriers and gofast boats based in Florida. Drugs are also brought ¶ to the island by foreign tourists, usually for their own use, but sometimes with the intent ¶ of introducing them into the Cuban
market. A third source is domestic marijuana ¶ cultivation, which yields a relatively low-quality leaf, mainly in Cuba’s eastern provinces ¶ (Granma, Santiago de Cuba). Finally,
there was cocaine that leaked into the domestic ¶ Cuban market from the trafficking pipeline that Interior Ministry officials set up through ¶ Cuba in the late 1980s. This pipeline, I
suspect, carried a lot more than the six tons ¶ officially acknowledged by the Cuban regime. ¶ The policies adopted by the Castro regime to counteract the perceived drug threat
to ¶ Cuban society took several forms. One was to strengthen counter-narcotics legislation. ¶ Between 1988 and 1999 maximum penalties for drug dealing in Cuba’s criminal
code ¶ increased from 7-15 years imprisonment to 20 years to death. Money laundering was ¶ made a crime punishable by up to 12 years in jail, and Cuban banks were
compelled to ¶ adopt “know your customer" rules and to maintain records of transactions of more than ¶ 10,000 pesos (roughly $10,000 equivalent) for five years. In 2003, the
government ¶ tightened the screws further with a decree prescribing the confiscation of business and ¶ residential property where drugs were produced, sold, stored, or
consumed, a step that ¶ precipitated nationwide house-to-house searches to root out evidence of drug crimes. ¶ Drug interdiction efforts were expanded to deny Cuban airspace
and territorial waters to ¶ traffickers. Much of the emphasis here was on clearing Cuba’s coast of recalos of cocaine ¶ and marijuana and to this end the regime mobilized various
social organizations – youth ¶ brigades, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, fishing collectives, tourism ¶ workers, et. al. – to cooperate with the Cuban Border Guard
in patrolling the island’s ¶ shores. Also, to facilitate information-sharing on suspected drug shipments crossing ¶ Cuban territory, in 1999 Havana allowed the stationing of a U.S.
Coast Guard officer in ¶ the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. ¶ On the demand-reduction front Cuba set up a vast network of nearly 200 mental health ¶ centers, staffed by
psychologists and family physicians, which were charged with ¶ preventing the spread of drug abuse within the Cuban population. Some of these facilities ¶ provided in-house
treatment and rehabilitation for cocaine and marijuana addicts. The ¶ regime mounted an extensive education and prevention campaign targeting schools and ¶ youth
organizations, evidently aiming to insulate the younger generation from the ¶ scourge of drugs. ¶ By some indications, the regime’s draconian drug policies seem to have
worked, at least ¶ up to a point. My contacts within the Cuban public health system have told me that the ¶ average price of a gram of cocaine increased from about $15-20 in
the 1999-2003 period ¶ to $90 in mid-2008, and the price for a joint of imported marijuana from $1 to $10 over ¶ the same years. Also, admissions of the numbers of new
entrants into drug treatment ¶ facilities in the Havana area have dwindled significantly since the 1990s. ¶ Now on the foreign policy front: looking back in time, narcoticstrafficking was a focal ¶ point of conflict in U.S.-Cuban relations for most of the pre-1990 years, except for a brief ¶ period during the Carter administration. The focus gradually
shifted to cooperation in the ¶ 1990s, as the Cuban leadership ostensibly severed connections to the international drug ¶ trade. Cooperation and information-sharing between the
two countries have netted a few ¶ high profile seizures, arrests, and extraditions, but all of this has occurred rather ¶ episodically, without an umbrella agreement on counternarcotics cooperation, (although ¶ Cuba has concluded such agreements with many other countries inside and outside the ¶ hemisphere). ¶ Such an agreed framework could set
the stage for a more substantive level of engagement ¶ on drugs. For example, we could train and equip Cuban Border Guards and Interior ¶ Ministry operatives, we could
conduct joint naval patrols with Cuba in the western ¶ Caribbean, we could coordinate investigation of regional trafficking networks and ¶ suspicious financial transactions
through Cuban banks and commercial entities, and we ¶ could station DEA and FBI contingents in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. We could ¶ also negotiate a ship-rider
agreement with the Cuban authorities, and possibly even the ¶ right to pursue drug-laden vessels and aircraft seeking safe haven in Cuban territory. ¶ How far Havana and
Washington would be willing to proceed in these directions is ¶ unclear, since the
political barriers on both sides are formidable. Yet the
prospects for ¶ more productive collaboration against the hemispheric drug threat seem a lot more ¶ promising today than in the
past. In any event, failure to exploit Cuba's law enforcement ¶ and intelligence assets to good advantage leaves a
major gap in U.S. defenses against ¶ drug trafficking through the Caribbean. Interdiction successes n
Mexico seem likely to ¶ augment this flow down the road, a further reason to closely monitor trafficking trends in ¶ a Caribbean
country only 90 miles from U.S. shores. The drug threat from Cuba seems ¶ destined to increase as the Castro regime's
revolutionary order loses its hold and appeal, ¶ as the island's economic ties with the outside world continue to expand, and as ¶
criminally-inclined Cuban nationals seek alliances with South American and Mexican ¶ drug kingpins. Such an outcome is hardly in
the best interests of the United States and ¶ other countries in the hemisphere.
Drug Trafficking in Latin America causes crime, violence, corruption and
instability
Seelke et. al. 11
Clare Ribando is a Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Service and holds a Master of Public Affairs
and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. “Latin America and the Caribbean: Illicit Drug
Trafficking and U.S. Counterdrug Programs” Congressional Research Service May 12, 2011
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41215.pdf
Drug trafficking is viewed as a primary threat to citizen security and U.S. interests in Latin ¶
America and the Caribbean despite decades of anti-drug efforts by the United States and partner ¶ governments. The
production and trafficking of popular illicit drugs—cocaine, marijuana, ¶ opiates, and methamphetamine—
generate a multi-billion dollar black market in which Latin ¶ American criminal and terrorist
organizations thrive. These groups challenge state authority in ¶ source and transit countries where
governments are often fragile and easily corrupted . Mexican ¶ drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) largely control
the U.S. illicit drug market and have been ¶ identified by the U.S. Department of Justice as the “greatest organized crime
threat to the United ¶ States.” Drug trafficking-related crime and violence in the region has
escalated in recent years, ¶ raising the drug issue to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy concerns.
Solvency
Cuba Says Yes
Cuba says yes – new force-feeding procedures
Times 13 (The, Guantanamo Bay inmates force-fed 'illegally', The Australian, May 03, 2013 12:00AM, Online,
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-bay-inmates-force-fed-illegally/story-fnb64oi6-1226634217248, accessed
7/27/13) PE
The Pentagon admits that 100 inmates are now on hunger strike, with 23 being fed through nasal
tubes. Lawyers say some of them have lost up to 18kg since the protest began in February. ¶ The Pentagon sent 40 nurses and
other specialists to Guantanamo this week to help with the care of the hunger strikers as conditions at the camp have come under
renewed scrutiny.¶ One prisoner, who spoke by telephone to his lawyer, said he was restrained by officers in riot gear and tied hand
and foot before having a drip forcibly inserted in his hand.¶ Cuba waded into the controversy yesterday,
demanding that Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Havana's control. ¶ Rupert Coville, a spokesman
for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said yesterday: "If it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment
and it's the case it's painful, then it is prohibited by international law." The UN bases its stance on the World Medical
Association watchdog, which declared in 1991 that forcible feeding was "never ethically acceptable".¶ Artificial feeding can be used
only where the prisoner agrees, or if the detainee is ruled unable to make a competent decision and gave no advance instructions
refusing the treatment.¶ Cori Crider, the legal director of prisoner rights organisation Reprieve, said one of her clients had described
being strapped into a chair in his cell and force-fed while shackled. "Either they could not cope or they are being gratuitously cruel,"
she said.¶ Conditions at Guantanamo are back in the spotlight this week after US President Barack Obama made it clear he still
wanted to shut the camp, which he said was expensive, unnecessary and a recruitment tool for extremists. ¶ The White House
confirmed it was looking at ways to reduce the population of 166 detainees, who have been held there for up to 11 years without
charge or trial.¶ One of the sticking points is a self-imposed ban on repatriating people to Yemen, where al-Qa'ida is still active. Of
the 86 inmates considered to be low risk, 56 are Yemeni.¶ Critics of the administration say the White House has been inactive and
has all but given up on trying to reduce numbers. The State Department's special envoy on Guantanamo, ambassador Daniel Fried,
was moved to a new job in January and has not been replaced. ¶ Peter Jan Honigsberg, a San Francisco University law professor
who runs the Witness to Guantanamo project, archiving events at the camp, said: "They shuttered the State Department office in
January that would look for ways to repatriate people. They clearly gave up on that.¶ "I spoke to ambassador Fried about the reason
why it was closed - it's simple, there's no movement from the White House."¶ On Mr Obama's new pledge, Professor
Honigsberg said: "Words don't work any more for me, not after 11 years of people being held without trial."
Naval Base Mechanism
Returning the naval base opens up opportunities for growth and relations for the
whole Caribbean
Barcia 7/11 (Dr Manuel Barcia, Deputy Director at the Institute for Colonial and Postcolonial Studies at the University of
Leeds. “Guantanamo’s other history—Returning Guantanamo to Cubans may develop US-Cuba relations and create brighter
opportunities for the entire Caribbean.” Aljazeera. July 11, 2013. Web.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/20137101135135984.html)//MK
Nationalism aside, the fact remains that the occupation of Guantanamo, although technically legal, was enforced
upon two weak Cuban governments who were hardly in a position to confront the might of the U nited
States at the time. Sooner or later a new treaty free of imperialist bullying should be negotiated with the
government of the Republic of Cuba. Whether that government is led by Raul Castro or by some
democratically elected successor is ultimately irrelevant. It should be down to the people of Cuba
to determine the future of this now world (in)famous base. Guantanamo may provide the US and Cuba
with a chance to develop and improve their diplomatic relations, and to transform its dark legend
of illegalities and torture into a bright opportunity for collaboration and growth for the entire
Caribbean.
Returning Guantanamo compensates Cuban people and helps relations
Chelala 13 (Dr. CESAR CHELALA, MD, PhD, is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America award, foreign
correspondent for Middle East Times International (Australia). “How Guantánamo Can Improve U.S. Relations with its Latin
Neighbors—Return Guantánamo to the Cuban People,” Counter Punch. MARCH 26, 2013. Web.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/26/return-guantanamo-to-the-cuban-people/)//MK
To restore good relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, damaged by several years of neglect, is one of many difficult tasks now facing the
A measure that could have far-reaching consequences and notably improve the U.S.’ battered
image in the continent would be to return Guantánamo to the Cuban people. Guantánamo has a
convoluted history. Initially, the U.S. government obtained a 99-year lease on the 45 square mile area beginning in 1903. The resulting
Obama administration.
Cuban-American Treaty established, among other things, that for the purposes of operating naval and coaling stations in Guantánamo, the U.S. had
“complete jurisdiction and control” of the area. However, it was also recognized that the Republic of Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty. In 1934, a new
treaty reaffirmed most of the lease conditions, increased the lease payment to the equivalent of $3,085 in U.S. dollars per year, and made the lease
permanent unless both governments agreed to end it or the U.S. decided to abandon the area. In the confusion of the early days of the Cuban
revolution, Castro’s government cashed the first check but left the remaining checks un-cashed. Since these checks were made out to the ‘Treasurer
General of the Republic’, a position that ceased to exist after the revolution, they are technically invalid. The U.S. has maintained that the cashing of
the first check indicates acceptance of the lease conditions. However, at the time of the new treaty, the U.S. sent a fleet of warships to Cuba to
the lease conditions were imposed on Cuba under duress
and are rendered void under modern international law. The U.S. has used the argument of Cuban
sovereignty over Guantánamo when denying basic guarantees of the U.S. Constitution to the
detainees at that facility by indicating that federal jurisdiction doesn’t apply to them. If the Cuban
government indeed has sovereignty over Guantánamo, then its claims over the area are legally
binding and the U.S. is obligated to return Guantánamo to Cuba. Since 1959, the Cuban government has
informed the U.S. government that it wants to terminate the lease on Guantánamo . The U.S. has consistently refused this
strengthen its position. Thus, a counter argument is that
request on the grounds that it requires agreement by both parties. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, an American lawyer and professor of international law at
the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, has noted that article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states, “A
treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of
the United Nations.” He also believes that the conditions under which the treaty was imposed on the Cuban National Assembly, particularly as a precondition to limited Cuban independence, left Cuba no other choice than to yield to pressure. A treaty can also be void by virtue of material breach of
its provisions, as indicated in article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to the original terms of the lease agreement, the
the use of the Guantánamo facility as an
demonstrated torture center by the U.S.
military — indicates a significant breach of that agreement, fully justifying its immediate
termination. President Jimmy Carter courageously returned the Panama Canal to the Panamanians, thus setting an important precedent in
Guantánamo Bay territory could only be used for coaling and naval purposes. However,
internment camp for Haitian and Cuban refugees — or, even more ominously, as a
international relations. President Carter did what was legally right, and lifted U.S. prestige not only among Panamanians but throughout the
hemisphere. It can be said that the proposal of returning Guantánamo to Cuba is hopelessly naïve, since it would give an unnecessary
boost to the Castro brothers. However, this would be balanced by a wave of goodwill and respect towards the U.S. throughout Latin America. In
addition, returning
Guantánamo to Cuba will allow the U.S. to close one of the most tragic chapters of
its legal and moral history, and it will compensate Cubans for the miseries they have had to
endure due to the U.S. embargo and the stubbornness of the Cuban leaders.
Returning Guantanamo to Cuba is feasible and the best way to solve relations
Sweig et al 9 ( Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies and Director for Latin
America Studies. “Don't Just Close Gitmo. Give It Back.” May 3, 2009.
Washington Post. Web. http://www.cfr.org/cuba/dont-just-close-gitmo-give-back/p19289)//MK
President Obama has promised to shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo
Bay, seeking to
erase a blot on America's global image. He has also reached out to Cuba, easing some travel and
financial restrictions in an effort to recast Washington's approach to the island. These two initiatives have proceeded on
separate tracks so far, but now is the time to bring them together. Hiding in plain sight, the U.S. naval base at
Guantanamo Bay is the ideal place for Obama to launch a far-reaching transformation of
Washington's relationship with its communist neighbor. How? By preparing to give Guantanamo
back to Cuba. It's not as impossible as it sounds. The United States has scaled back, modified or
even withdrawn its military presence elsewhere; think Okinawa, South Korea, Subic Bay in the Philippines or
Vieques in Puerto Rico. Whatever Guantanamo's minor strategic value to the United States for processing refugees or as a counternarcotics outpost, the costs of staying permanently -- with the stain of the prisons, the base's imperial
legacy and the animosity of the host government -- outweigh the benefits. The time to begin this transition
is now. By transforming Guantanamo as part of a broader remaking of Washington's relationship
with Cuba, the Obama administration can begin fixing what the president himself has decried as a
"failed" policy. It can upend a U.S.-Cuba stalemate that has barely budged for 50 years and can
put to the test Raul Castro's stated willingness to entertain meaningful changes.
WE’RE TOPICAL!!!
Vinke 9 (Kira Vinke—Visiting Research Scholar at TERI University, intern at German Embassy Tokyo, research Assistant at
Council on Hemispheric Affairs. “REVAMPING U.S.-CUBAN POLITICS: PLAYING THE GUANTÁNAMO CARD IN A GAME OF
CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY.” COHA. March 4, 2009. Web. http://www.coha.org/revamping-us-cuban-politics-playing-theguantanamo-card-in-a-game-of-constructive-diplomacy/)//MK
This makes perfectly clear that effectively reestablishing Washington’s reputation for probity abroad will not end with the closing of
the internment camp in Guantánamo. If Obama is serious about undoing U.S. policy in the course of its war on
terror, and if he wants to again make this country into a law abiding society, he will have to ensure fair trials for all suspects
formerly detained by the U.S. at Guantánamo Bay and then return the military base to Cuba, marking a clear
break with its dark history. Such a reconstruction of relations would be beneficial for both
partners, economically , politically and socially, especially due to the close geographic proximity
of the two nations. The Legal Perspective: A Void Treaty. It can be argued that from an objective perspective, the U.S.
occupation of Guantánamo is illegal and the 1903 treaty is invalid. International law professor and former U.N. lawyer, Alfred de
Zayas, maintains that “the lease agreement is voidable.” As evidence he cites five international legal findings; the Doctrine of
Unequal Treaties, the Emergence of New Peremptory Norms, the Implied Right of Denunciation, the Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus
and the Termination by Virtue of Material Breach. The Doctrine of Unequal Treaties describes the voiding of treaties that had been
entered into between unequal parties. Former Soviet judge Sergei Krylov articulated in 1947, at the International Court of Justice in
The Hague, that treaties “by which an imperialist power imposes its will upon a weaker state” are
invalid. Under this condition, treaties between imperialist superpowers and colonies were revoked in the process of
decolonization. In reference to Guantánamo, it can be maintained that Cuba was not a fully sovereign state in
1903 when the treaty to lease one of the island’s finest natural harbors to the U.S. was made. Havana had emerged from
400 years of Spanish control in 1898, and taking the Platt Amendment into account, Cuba was in effect still under U.S. military
occupation when it declared its nominal independence on May 20, 1902. During this period, Havana came under great pressure
from Washington to sign the agreement guaranteeing effective U.S. sovereignty over the island. Furthermore, the Emergence of
New Peremptory Norms is mentioned by Zayas. It relates to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and can be applied
to the Guantánamo case. Article 64 of that document states that if there is a new norm in international law, it retrospectively applies
to all treaties. Consequently, if treaties do not comply with the new norm, they must be rendered invalid. The principle of selfdetermination, and by extension of this a nation-state’s full sovereignty over its soil, has been a peremptory norm of international law
for many years now. Since the treaty between the U.S. and Cuba clearly violates this norm, it deserves to be annulled. In addition to
these provisions of a number of international laws, Zayas points out that article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties
argues that a treaty should be interpreted according to the context and the circumstances under which it was made. He makes the
case that Cuba intentionally did not sell the land to the U.S. in the early 1900’s, but retained sovereignty over the leased territory.
Therefore, “a sovereign should be able to regain the exercise of jurisdiction over the territory in question, otherwise he is not a true
sovereign,” Zayas contends. Zayas also invokes the Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus, which provides legal ground for a treaty to
become invalid if there is a fundamental change in circumstances. A change in regime in Havana from a former ally
to a foe, to which the U.S. has maintained a half-century embargo aimed at asphyxiating its
economy, represents an essential alteration of an objective situation. He concludes that it is “an
anomaly that the country that has imposed an embargo on Cuba for more than 40 years insists
that it has a right to remain on its sovereign territory,” and Washington’s operation as a sovereign even though it
all along has acknowledged that the harbor belongs to Cuba is also a contradiction. Lastly, Zayas brings up what may be the most
obvious reason for the invalidating of the 1903 agreement: the breach of contract by the U.S. The treaty states that the territory
is to be used for “coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose.“ The use of the land for
establishing an internment camp and interrogation center “is wholly incompatible with the object
and purpose of the treaty.” Furthermore, it was stipulated that the territory could not be used for commercial purposes.
However, there are currently nine restaurants, seven bars, a bowling alley, a surfboard rental and several other businesses on the
base. The five legal standards listed above fully apply to the situation in Guantánamo and show that under international law, the
1903 treaty is invalid. David vs. Goliath. Aside from the indisputable legal situation, it would be economically beneficial
for the U.S. to abolish the base, and its relations with the region as a whole would undoubtedly
benefit from such a move. The results of similar historical actions, like the reversion of the Panama Canal to
Panama, and the Suez Canal to Egypt, demonstrate the diplomatic advantages of returning Guantánamo to
Cuba, due to the goodwill it would engender. The U.S. approach to Cuba has been perhaps the
single biggest factor in the emergence of a tumultuous relationship between Washington and the
rest of Latin America, and steps towards a thaw in its ties with Havana would surely strengthen the
U.S.’ image elsewhere, which is considered to be a major desideration involved in its attempts to reconstruct its Latin
American policy. Therefore, once the detention camp is closed, the territory itself should be returned to
Cuba, as there is no reason to maintain the existing naval station. Fidel Castro called it “an arrogant act
and an abuse of immense power against a little country,” for the U.S. not to return the base .
Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez demanded on January 29 at the World Social Forum in Brazil that President Obama should
“return Guantánamo and Guantánamo Bay to the Cubans because that is Cuban territory.” Demonstrably, it is up to the U.S. to
comply with the law of nations and standards of international law. As of now, Havana, the weaker nation by far, can merely
repeatedly demand the reversion of its land back to Cuba. At this point, Washington can start by fulfilling some of the
fundamental duties of a state: namely, to abide by the application of the principles of international law to this dispute, while
committing an act of comity and goodwill by returning Guantánamo to its rightful owner, Cuba.
Returning Guantanamo to Cuba would strengthen relationships with Cuba and Latin America
Vinke 9 (Kira Vinke—Visiting Research Scholar at TERI University, intern at German Embassy Tokyo, research Assistant at
Council on Hemispheric Affairs. “REVAMPING U.S.-CUBAN POLITICS: PLAYING THE GUANTÁNAMO CARD IN A GAME OF
CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY.” COHA. March 4, 2009. Web. http://www.coha.org/revamping-us-cuban-politics-playing-theguantanamo-card-in-a-game-of-constructive-diplomacy/)//MK
Returning Guantánamo to effective Cuban sovereignty as part of a normalization of relations with
Cuba would have an explosive impact throughout Latin America. It would be the single most
transformative act of goodwill that the U.S. could make, and would be sure to bring in return a
range of positive actions on Havana’s part. Furthermore, Washington’s release of the Cuban Five (jailed Cubans
presently serving lengthy prison terms after very controversial trials before Federal District Judge Joan Lenard – one of the most
contentious judicial figures in the country) could win the release of all political prisoners presently being held in Cuba. Guantánamo:
an Anachronism The presence of the U.S. in Cuba is a grossly outdated quirk of history. Today there appears to be no
logical justification for the U.S. maintenance of its more than 100-year old outmoded base at
Guantánamo; the U.S. receives no tactical or economic benefits from it . Indeed, The New York Times
estimated that the annual cost to operate the strategically redundant base ranges between $90 million and $118 million, an
unconscionable waste of vital resources, particularly in these dire economic times. To continue leasing territory from
a
country with which the U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations for almost five decades and
which has become its mortal enemy, also seems to be a bizarre practice at the least and at best a perversity.
There is no legal justification for Washington’s continued presence at Guantánamo ; the base
contravenes a myriad of international laws. Moreover, the original military rationale for sustaining a base on Cuba no longer exists.
Washington has closed similar bases in the region, including Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico, and the naval imperatives of the late
19th century have long since disappeared. Roosevelt Roads was shut down due to the Pentagon’s base-closing proceedings.
There is no question that Guantánamo would be in for the same fate if it weren’t used as an
instrument of spite against the Castro regime, rather than serving a useful function. In short, the
U.S.’ maintenance of Guantánamo is an anachronism, which it would do no harm to resolve,
rather decidedly bringing distinct political benefits.
Closing GITMO insufficient—naval base must be returned to Cuba
Rueckert 6/4 (Phineas Rueckert, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. “GUANTÁNAMO BAY:
CLOSING THE GTMO DETENTION CENTER IS A WILTING OLIVE BRANCH TO CUBA AND THE REST OF LATIN AMERICA.”
COHA Research. June 4, 2013. Web. http://www.coha.org/guantanamo-bay-closing-the-gtmo-detention-center-is-a-wilting-olivebranch-to-cuba-and-the-rest-of-latin-america/)//MK
For many people in the United States, including President Obama, closing Guantánamo Bay means shutting down the detention
center but leaving the naval base open. However, closing only the detention center would do little to improve
the relationship between Cuba and the United States. Timothy Ashby, a Senior Research Fellow at
the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Commerce has observed:
I do not think closure of the GTMO center would have any impact on bilateral relations with Cuba.
If the entire base were shut down and handed back to Cuba, I think the Cuban government would
react favorably and see it as a goodwill gesture. But that will not happen even though the actual base is an
unnecessary expense and serves no more of a strategic purpose than the detention center. For Obama, closing the Guantánamo
Bay detention center has more to do with improving the image of the United States in the world than it does with improving U.S.
relations with Cuba or other Latin American countries and the Caribbean. As Obama decried in his May 23 speech, the
Guantánamo Bay detention center is an unnecessary moral and financial burden on the United
States. But the naval base itself, which Obama has never suggested closing, still serves a strategic purpose of projecting U.S.
military power in the Western Hemisphere. Washington’s cursory discourse concerning Guantánamo Bay—which neglects to
consider reverting the naval base to Cuba as an option—suggests that its imperialist inclinations have not fully abated. Broadly
speaking, the continued presence of U.S. troops at Guantánamo —regardless of whether or not those troops are
there to detain terrorists—shows that Washington is not ready to step down from its traditional strategic/militaristic position in Latin
America or improve relations with Cuba. Bolender argued that: Guantánamo is a symbol of the imperialistic past [of
the United States] towards Latin America, and in particular Cuba. The detention center should be
shut down, those not charged freed immediately, and the rest, if any are truly guilty, sent to the United States. The bigger
situation is that the base itself, forced upon Cuba more than 100 years ago, should be returned to
Cuba. [U.S. citizens] have no right to be there, except under a one-sided treaty that the Cuban government has long condemned.
That would certainly improve relations between the two countries, but the Americans have made it clear they
have no intention of returning what rightfully belongs to Cuba.
Closing Gitmo sends signal that the US approves of Cuban government changes
Miranda 11 (Olga Miranda, Doctor of Legal Sciences. “How to End the
Guantánamo Treaty,” essay. Published 2011 in “Guantánamo,” book.
http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/static/pdfs/guantanamo.pdf) //MK
Let us recall that the treaty leaves the termination of the lease to the will of the United States : “for the time
required.” Now, thanks to Section 201 (12) of Chapter II of the Helms-Burton law, the government of the United States
is required to be “ready to begin negotiations” with a Cuban government of which they approved ,
that is, that fitted their “democratic” pattern. The requirement in the treaty that the base be held only while it is useful
has been made irrelevant since March 1996, when the Helms-Burton law was implemented. The duration of the base will
now depend on whether Cuba has a government that Washington approves of . Therefore, because of the
Helms-Burton law—an imperial instrument that prevails over the so-called treaty, created with a unilateral decision taken by one of
the two parties—although the base may become an annoyance (as, in fact, it is), and although US
taxpayers must continue to pay for the mess created by the Helms-Burton law in general and particularly to keep the
naval base at Guantánamo, the hands of the US government will be tied to the implementation of the
existing treaty. The Helms-Burton law ruling is further proof that the continued existence of the naval base in
Guantánamo is imposed on Cuba by the United States with no legal backing whatsoever and without
consideration for the will of the Cuban people. From the beginning, the naval base was a unilateral creation of the
United States, and the latest act confirms this once again.
Cuban government willing to work with the US to resolve Guantanamo issues
Miranda 11 (Olga Miranda, Doctor of Legal Sciences. “How to End the
Guantánamo Treaty,” essay. Published 2011 in “Guantánamo,” book.
http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/static/pdfs/guantanamo.pdf) //MK
The conference considered that the maintenance by the United States of the naval base at Guantánamo,
against the will of the Cuban government and people—and despite the provisos in the declaration of the 1961
Belgrade conference—is a violation of Cuba’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Cairo conference 92
Guántanamo also noted that the
Cuban government had stated its willingness to resolve its dispute with
the US government regarding the military base at Guantánamo on an equal footing . Therefore, the
Cairo conference requested that the US government hold negotiations with the government of Cuba to withdraw from that military
facility.
Guantanamo bay opposed by most citizens-not just Cuban government
Miranda 11 (Olga Miranda, Doctor of Legal Sciences. “How to End the Guantánamo Treaty,”
essay. Published 2011 in “Guantánamo,” book. http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/static/pdfs/guantanamo.pdf) //MK
Another possibility for terminating the lease of the Guantánamo base is expressed in the 1934 treaty, where in the beginning
of Article III reads: “Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification of the [February 1903]
agreement.” The idea expressed in this sentence does not really imply the termination of the occupation
of the territory—it indicates more the US desire to maintain the possibility of implementing later a
new, more modern form of agreement, like the treaties they have signed since 1940 to legitimize their military bases in
foreign territories. The idea of abandoning the base, that is to say, the unilateral action mentioned in the 1903
agreements and ratified in the 1934 treaty, is the one that survives in the sentence, “as long as the United
States of America shall not abandon the naval base at Guantánamo .” For that reason, it would be worthwhile
to explain here that when the 1934 treaty is mentioned, the treatment of the base in the 1903 agreement is implicit. Thus, it would
not be absurd to speak about the “1903/1934 treaty or agreement.” The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes
that a state may not contend a cause to annul or terminate a treaty if, after knowing about a violation, it has expressly
communicated that: The treaty is valid, or; It is still in effect, or; Its application continues, or; It has been verified in such a way that it
must be deemed to have acquiesced to the validity of the treaty or to its continued enforcement or application, according to the case
in question. I ask myself if the United States could at some point claim the continuity of the
application of the treaty on the base due to the simple fact that its troops remain in it,
notwithstanding the coercion and threats and violations of the treaty by the US side . I also ask
myself whether that undesired permanence could signify Cuba’s acquiescence and, consequently, a sort
of validation that negates the demand that the treaty be annulled due to the element of duress in the
agreement. However, it is publicly and well known that the Cuban people never consented to the US
presence imposed upon them, moreover the agreement was a violation of the Cuban constitution
that was rejected by a popular referendum which also declared the agreement unlawful and
invalid.
Transferring the naval base gives Guantanamo back to Cuba – that spills over to
international perception
Hansen 12 (Jonathan M. Hansen, lecturer in social studies at Harvard, author of “Guantánamo: An American History.” “Give
Guantánamo Back to Cuba,” NY Times article. January 10, 2012. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/giveguantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=0)//MK
How did this look from Cuba’s perspective? Well, imagine that at the end of the American Revolution the
French had decided to remain here. Imagine that the French had refused to allow Washington and
his army to attend the armistice at Yorktown. Imagine that they had denied the Continental Congress a seat at the
Treaty of Paris, prohibited expropriation of Tory property, occupied New York Harbor, dispatched troops to quash
Shays’ and other rebellions and then immigrated to the colonies in droves, snatching up the most
valuable land. Such is the context in which the United States came to occupy Guantánamo. It is a
history excluded from American textbooks and neglected in the debates over terrorism,
international law and the reach of executive power. But it is a history known in Cuba (where it
motivated the 1959 revolution) and throughout Latin America. It explains why Guantánamo remains a glaring
symbol of hypocrisy around the world. We need not even speak of the last decade. If President Obama were to
acknowledge this history and initiate the process of returning Guantánamo to Cuba, he could
begin to put the mistakes of the last 10 years behind us, not to mention fulfill a campaign pledge .
(Given Congressional intransigence, there might be no better way to close the detention camp than to turn
over the rest of the naval base along with it.) It would rectify an age-old grievance and lay the groundwork for new
relations with Cuba and other countries in the Western Hemisphere and around the globe. Finally, it would send an
unmistakable message that integrity, self-scrutiny and candor are not evidence of weakness, but
indispensable attributes of leadership in an ever changing world. Surely there would be no fitter way to
observe today’s grim anniversary than to stand up for the principles Guantánamo has undermined
for over a century.
Returning the Bay is an important step towards relations and human rights
Cavendish 5/30 (David Cavendish, writer for People’s World. “Let's give Guantanamo Bay back
to Cuba,” People’s World. May 30th, 2013. Web. http://www.peoplesworld.org/let-s-giveguantanamo-bay-back-to-cuba/)//MK
Guantanamo will only be closed if there continues to be a broad-based movement that
consistently pressures the government to close the prison. This effort is being augmented by the
struggle - most notably through their hunger strike - by the detainees to seek justice. When the
detention center is closed it will be a most important step in the worldwide effort to achieve
universal human rights. But this closure should be only a first step in a longterm strategy. What
must be done is for the United States to return Guantanamo Bay, with all of its military facilities
dismantled, to Cuba, the country from which U.S. imperialists stole it in 1898. There is no reason
for the U.S. to maintain control over territory that belongs to another sovereign nation. Our
presence in Guantanamo Bay harks back to the days of "gunboat diplomacy" and running roughshod
over the darker-skinned peoples of Latin America, Asia, and Africa.
Hypocritical Guantanamo Bay should be returned
Sabrin 13 (Murray Sabrin, Professor of Finance in the Anisfield School of
Business at Ramapo College of New Jersey, Ph.D. in economic geography from
Rutgers University, an M.A. in social studies education from Lehman College and
a B.A. in history, geography and social studies education from Hunter College.
Economic Policy Journal, “Murray Sabrin: Return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba.”
February 4th, 2013. Web. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/murraysabrin-return-guantanamo-bay-to.html)//MK
The stumbling blocks to ending the American embargo are obvious: the political clout of the Cuban-American community who fled
the island before and after Castro nationalized the country’s resources; returning the confiscated property to their owners or heirs
would be a goodwill gesture by the Cuban government. The U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. Having a foreign
power occupy a portion of a country’s nation’s territory is a violation of national sovereignty.
Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Cuba. Would the American people tolerate Mexico,
Canada or any other nation occupying a portion Hawaii, Alaska or any land in our southwest, northwest, and
northeast regions of America? To ask the question is to answer it.
Obama on board-just need congress
Global Post 13 (Global Post News Website. “Cuba says US must shut Guantanamo, hand back base,” AFP. May 1st, 2013.
Web. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130501/cuba-says-us-must-shut-guantanamo-hand-back-base)//MK
"That prison and military base should be shut down and that territory should be returned to Cuba ,"
he said. Parrilla also slammed the force-feeding of more than a dozen hunger strikers who, like the
bulk of the detainees in the "war on terror" lock-up, have been refusing food for weeks. Earlier
Wednesday, the UN's human rights office had said that feeding hunger strikers against their will was a breach of
international law. The hunger strike, now into its 12th week, has heightened the pressure on Washington to
shut what Obama has called a legal "no man's land". Obama said Tuesday he did not want any
inmates to die and urged Congress to help him find a long-term solution that would allow for
prosecuting terror suspects while shutting down Guantanamo .
T Answers
2ac – T Increase Economic Engagement
We Meet Technical cooperation is economic engagement
CDKN No Date (Climate & Development Knowledge Network, “Brazil’s economic engagement with Africa”,
http://cdkn.org/resource/brazils-economic-engagement-with-africa/, No Date)
Brazil’s economic engagement with Africa. Africa offers Brazil an opportunity to expand its bilateral
technical cooperation and to revolutionise renewable energy production – in particular biofuels, where it has
Brazil’s technical expertise in a range of areas relevant to Africa’s
development needs (e.g. agricultural research, social protection, anti-retroviral treatment), it can
play an important role in contributing to the continent’s socioeconomic development. This paper
assumed a global leadership. Given
explores both the current nature and possible future orientations of Brazil’s economic, commercial and financial relationships with
the African countries. The focus of the paper is to assess the volume and trend of trade commodities between Brazil and African
countries; to determine the nature of Brazilian investments in Africa; and to scope the benefits of Brazil’s technical cooperation.
We Meet Engagement on physical infrastructure is economic
UN Business Guidelines ’13 (United Nations Organization devoted to studying, regulating, and advising the
business communities of the world on how to be global citizens, “How can companies make a profit, responsibly, while assisting low
income communities/countries?” UN Business Guidelines, accessed July 22, http://business.un.org/en/documents/196)
Financial gifts alone do not bring people out of poverty. They need the kind of enabling environment that will help
develop their economy: employment, educational opportunity, medical support, legal framework, access to credit, rural
development, supportive physical infrastructure, telecommunications connectivity and more. Businesses have a
unique role to play. Responsibly undertaken, their impact can be profound if they align core competencies with relevant
needs: education, health, law, microcredit, banking, agriculture, engineering, telecommunications and so on. This could be on a
philanthropic basis or on a business engagement level. There are different models of engagement: You may sell your
products or services, packaged and priced appropriately, within low income communities. You may train local partners in these
communities to develop appropriate skills or expertise so that they become distributors/partners themselves. This increases
employment, provides income and improves their communities, while increasing market share for your company. You may partner
to expand local utilities and services in low income communities. For example, information technology, health care, banking, water
and sanitation, crop development, business and management expertise, etc. You may partner with other businesses or
Government to strengthen physical infrastructure and economic environments to help foster
national growth. For example, extractive industries, satellite support, engineering projects, etc.
Counter-Interpretation
Increase requires a net increase
Words and Phrases 8 (20B W&P – 265-265)
Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991. Term “increase,” as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any
alteration, replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in “increase” of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating
capacity of existing thermal power plant, refers to “net increase” in power plant’s total generating capacity; in deciding
whether there has been the requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, Energy
Commission cannot ignore decreases in capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other units at plant.
West’s Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code § 25123.
Economic engagement is aid, trade, access to technology, lifting sanctions, and
entry into economic institutions
Haass and O’Sullivan, 2k - *Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND **a Fellow with
the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution (Richard and Meghan, “Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to
Punitive Policies” Survival,, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000,
http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf
Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic
engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or
promotion, access to technology , loans and economic aid.3 Other equally useful economic incentives
involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which
have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic
global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in today’s
global market. Similarly, political engagement can involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international
institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders – or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the
extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights
among a country’s armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military
officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement
entails building people-to-people contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and
promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible
incentives used in the form of engagement.
We Meet our counter interpretation because we increase access to the physical
technology located within the geography of Cuba.
Prefer our interpretation:
A) Aff Ground – we allow creativity with that has a limit to what the affirmative
is allowed to do. Aff creativity is key on this topic because there are only 3
countries and functional limits check most affs.
B) The form of engagement is key – non-economic motives will always exist.
Singh 1 – Swaran Singh, Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses, “China-India: Expanding Economic
Engagement”, 1-3, http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jan-3-01html.html
A fourth route, in the eastern sector has been agreed-in-principle since the last few years but there remain some basic complications. The
problem with this border trade post involves the ticklish issue of India's province of Sikkim that the Chinese
continue to regard as an independent state. While the Indian side has been suggesting the route originating in Sikkim, the Chinese
have been deliberating on this issue as it implies a formal recognition of Sikkim's accession to India. China, therefore, has suggested an alternate route
from Kalimpong in the Darjeeling district of India's province of West Bengal (passing through Sikkim) to Yatung in Chumbi Valley region. The Chinese
have also been indicating that such an agreement on this border trade post may include language implying China's official recognition of Sikkim as part
of the Indian Union. New Delhi, however, would like China to recognise Sikkim as part of India as a pre-requisite to any such agreement. This is often
explained in terms of India's earlier experiences with such trade pacts. For example, in another trade agreement of April 1954, Prime Minister Nehru
had traded off entire Tibet for nothing. To break from this intractable deadlock in their eastern sector, the two sides have since expanded their
framework and have been exploring possibilities of opening their border trade as part of sub-regional cooperation amongst India's northeast, China's
southwest, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The first formal conference for this purpose was convened in August 1999 at Kunming in China's province of
Yunnan and it passed a resolution which is known now as the Kunming Initiative. India is preparing to host the second such conference for sub-
All this clearly shows how
despite continuous improvement in their mutual trade and commerce, their economic decisions
regional cooperation amongst these four countries during the first week of December 2000 at Delhi.
still continue to be guided by their non-economic motives .
C) They over-limit
Reasonability: Good is good enough, there is only a marginal impact to any
difference between competing interpretations. They create a race to the bottom,
which will always exclude us absent reasonability
EE
Engagement on physical infrastructure is economic
UN Business Guidelines ’13 (United Nations Organization devoted to studying, regulating, and advising the
business communities of the world on how to be global citizens, “How can companies make a profit, responsibly, while assisting low
income communities/countries?” UN Business Guidelines, accessed July 22, http://business.un.org/en/documents/196)
Financial gifts alone do not bring people out of poverty. They need the kind of enabling environment that will help
develop their economy: employment, educational opportunity, medical support, legal framework, access to credit, rural
development, supportive physical infrastructure, telecommunications connectivity and more. Businesses have a
unique role to play. Responsibly undertaken, their impact can be profound if they align core competencies with relevant
needs: education, health, law, microcredit, banking, agriculture, engineering, telecommunications and so on. This could be on a
philanthropic basis or on a business engagement level. There are different models of engagement: You may sell your
products or services, packaged and priced appropriately, within low income communities. You may train local partners in these
communities to develop appropriate skills or expertise so that they become distributors/partners themselves. This increases
employment, provides income and improves their communities, while increasing market share for your company. You may partner
to expand local utilities and services in low income communities. For example, information technology, health care, banking, water
and sanitation, crop development, business and management expertise, etc. You may partner with other businesses or
Government to strengthen physical infrastructure and economic environments to help foster
national growth. For example, extractive industries, satellite support, engineering projects, etc.
Technical Cooperation = T
Technical cooperation
CDKN No Date (Climate & Development Knowledge Network, “Brazil’s economic engagement with Africa”,
http://cdkn.org/resource/brazils-economic-engagement-with-africa/, No Date)
Brazil’s economic engagement with Africa. Africa offers Brazil an opportunity to expand its bilateral
technical cooperation and to revolutionise renewable energy production – in particular biofuels, where it has
Brazil’s technical expertise in a range of areas relevant to Africa’s
development needs (e.g. agricultural research, social protection, anti-retroviral treatment), it can
play an important role in contributing to the continent’s socioeconomic development. This paper
assumed a global leadership. Given
explores both the current nature and possible future orientations of Brazil’s economic, commercial and financial relationships with
the African countries. The focus of the paper is to assess the volume and trend of trade commodities between Brazil and African
countries; to determine the nature of Brazilian investments in Africa; and to scope the benefits of Brazil’s technical cooperation.
Technical cooperation is economic engagement
Ben Barka, 5/11/2011 (Habiba, Senior Planning Economist (SAEC), “The African Development Bank Group Chief
Economist Complex” Africa Economic Brief vol. 2.6
http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/India's%20Economic%20Engagement%20with%20Africa.pdf)
Within the context of its “Aid for Africa” program, India
offers technical cooperation to many African countries
through the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC) and other related programs. ITEC allocates aid
based on the importance (economic and/or strategic) of the recipient country for India; it also provides funding for the training of
African personnel in India, for projects, technical assistance, study trips, and humanitarian assistance. India established the Special
Commonwealth Assistance for Africa Program (SCAAP), which operates under similar modalities to ITEC but its coverage is
restricted to those African countries belonging to the Commonwealth (i.e. 19 countries). In 2009-2010, India provided assistance
worth US$ 16.8 million under ITEC, US$ 1.8 million under SCAAP, and US$ 24.6 million as direct aid to African countries.5)
Technical cooperation is an example of economic engagement
Africa News, 10/3/2008 (“Namibia; Nigeria Urges Greater Economic Ties” Lexis)
Foreign diplomats and invited local dignitaries attended the function at which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marcus Hausiku, spoke
on behalf of the Namibian Government. "It is important that existing economic platforms be resuscitated to further
facilitate and deepen economic engagements in our bilateral relations with regard to health, education,
technical cooperation , fishing, air services, merchant shipping, tourism, investment, banking, finance as well
two countries need to help each other to develop
baskets of meaningful activities to be turned into concrete economic projects.
scientific and
as petroleum related matters," the High Commissioner said. The
Technical engagement over human rights is economic engagemetn
Callick, 2/18/2008 (Rowan, “Despite China's progress, Australia must continue to give the nation aid” The Australian Lexis)
The Human Rights Technical Cooperation program pursues issues discussed at the annual
dialogue between the countries on human rights, with a strong recent emphasis on due legal
processes. The Australia China Environment Development Program addresses ways to implement well-intentioned policy on the
environment, including water resource management and adaptation to climate change. And the China Australia
Governance Program comprises a high-level engagement on economic reform and management,
legal and social security reform and human rights.
Dip Cap Answers
Link Turns
Transferring the naval base gives Guantanamo back to Cuba – that spills over to
international perception
Hansen 12 (Jonathan M. Hansen, lecturer in social studies at Harvard, author of “Guantánamo: An American History.” “Give
Guantánamo Back to Cuba,” NY Times article. January 10, 2012. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/giveguantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=0)//MK
How did this look from Cuba’s perspective? Well, imagine that at the end of the American Revolution the
French had decided to remain here. Imagine that the French had refused to allow Washington and his
army to attend the armistice at Yorktown. Imagine that they had denied the Continental Congress a seat at the Treaty of
Paris, prohibited expropriation of Tory property, occupied New York Harbor, dispatched troops to quash Shays’ and
other rebellions and then immigrated to the colonies in droves, snatching up the most valuable land.
Such is the context in which the United States came to occupy Guantánamo. It is a history excluded
from American textbooks and neglected in the debates over terrorism, international law and the
reach of executive power. But it is a history known in Cuba (where it motivated the 1959 revolution) and
throughout Latin America. It explains why Guantánamo remains a glaring symbol of hypocrisy around
the world. We need not even speak of the last decade. If President Obama were to acknowledge this history and
initiate the process of returning Guantánamo to Cuba, he could begin to put the mistakes of the
last 10 years behind us, not to mention fulfill a campaign pledge. (Given Congressional intransigence, there
might be no better way to close the detention camp than to turn over the rest of the naval base
along with it.) It would rectify an age-old grievance and lay the groundwork for new relations with Cuba and other countries in
the Western Hemisphere and around the globe. Finally, it would send an unmistakable message that integrity,
self-scrutiny and candor are not evidence of weakness, but indispensable attributes of leadership
in an ever changing world. Surely there would be no fitter way to observe today’s grim anniversary than to
stand up for the principles Guantánamo has undermined for over a century.
Returning Guantanamo to Cuba solves US-Cuban and US-Latin American
relations—increases DipCap
Vinke 9 (Kira Vinke—Visiting Research Scholar at TERI University, intern at German Embassy Tokyo, research Assistant at
Council on Hemispheric Affairs. “REVAMPING U.S.-CUBAN POLITICS: PLAYING THE GUANTÁNAMO CARD IN A GAME OF
CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY.” COHA. March 4, 2009. Web. http://www.coha.org/revamping-us-cuban-politics-playing-theguantanamo-card-in-a-game-of-constructive-diplomacy/)//MK
Returning Guantánamo to effective Cuban sovereignty as part of a normalization of relations with
Cuba would have an explosive impact throughout Latin America. It would be the single most
transformative act of goodwill that the U.S. could make, and would be sure to bring in return a
range of positive actions on Havana’s part. Furthermore, Washington’s release of the Cuban Five
(jailed Cubans presently serving lengthy prison terms after very controversial trials before Federal District
Judge Joan Lenard – one of the most contentious judicial figures in the country) could win the release of
all political prisoners presently being held in Cuba. Guantánamo: an Anachronism The presence of the
U.S. in Cuba is a grossly outdated quirk of history. Today there appears to be no logical justification
for the U.S. maintenance of its more than 100-year old outmoded base at Guantánamo; the U.S.
receives no tactical or economic benefits from it. Indeed, The New York Times estimated that the
annual cost to operate the strategically redundant base ranges between $90 million and $118 million, an
unconscionable waste of vital resources, particularly in these dire economic times. To continue leasing
territory from a country with which the U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations for almost five
decades and which has become its mortal enemy, also seems to be a bizarre practice at the least
and at best a perversity. There is no legal justification for Washington’s continued presence at
Guantánamo; the base contravenes a myriad of international laws. Moreover, the original military
rationale for sustaining a base on Cuba no longer exists. Washington has closed similar bases in the
region, including Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico, and the naval imperatives of the late 19th century have
long since disappeared. Roosevelt Roads was shut down due to the Pentagon’s base-closing
proceedings. There is no question that Guantánamo would be in for the same fate if it weren’t used
as an instrument of spite against the Castro regime, rather than serving a useful function. In short,
the U.S.’ maintenance of Guantánamo is an anachronism, which it would do no harm to resolve,
rather decidedly bringing distinct political benefits.
Turn—keeping Guantanamo open costs more diplomatic capital
Waxman 7 (Matthew Waxman, Professor of Law; Faculty Chair, Roger Hertog Program on Law and National Security. expert
in national security law and international law, specializing in domestic and international legal aspects of combating terrorism and the
use of military force. J.D. from Yale Law School in Political Science and International Studies, served in senior positions at the U.S.
State Department, Department of Defense and National Security Council. “The Smart Way to Shut Gitmo Down,” Washington Post.
October 28, 2007. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601761.html)//MK
Yes, Guantanamo Bay has incapacitated many al-Qaeda plotters and has given the U.S. government a better picture of the enemy.
But those benefits came at a serious cost. On balance, the prison -- and the widespread perception that it exists
simply to keep detainees forever beyond the reach of the law -- has become a drag on America's
moral credibility and, more to the point, its global counterterrorism efforts, too. For example, the continued
controversy over Guantanamo Bay has hampered cooperation with our friends on such critical
counterterrorism tasks as information sharing, joint military operations and law enforcement . I
know: As a State Department official, I often spent valuable time and diplomatic capital fruitlessly
defending our detention practices rather than fostering counterterrorism teamwork . Guantanamo Bay
leaves us playing defense and hinders our ability to play effective offense.
Link Shield
Obama takes diplomatic blame—Kerry not affected
Schanzer 8 (David H. Schanzer, Head of the Duke-UNC Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Duke Sanford,
School of Public Policy. Published in The Philadelphia Inquirer and Raleigh News and Observer. “New Administration Should Move
Swiftly To Close Guantánamo.” November 6, 2008. Web. http://news.sanford.duke.edu/news-type/commentary/2008/newadministration-should-move-swiftly-close-guant%C3%A1namo)//MK
The second group consists of detainees who our military has determined present no danger, but have not been released because
we cannot find a country that will take them. The new president will have to expend some diplomatic capital
on convincing our allies to share the burden of closing Guantánamo by taking custody of these
individuals. For this mission to succeed, however, we will need to avoid what happened earlier this month, when a State
Department effort to place 17 Uighur detainees abroad was undercut by Justice Department statements that they are extremely
dangerous.
Politics Answers
Winners Win
Keeping Guantanamo open makes Obama look indecisive
Foster 13 Peter, Telegraph's US Editor based in Washington DC. He moved to America in January 2012 after three years
based in Beijing, where he covered the rise of China. Before that, he was based in New Delhi as South Asia correspondent,
President Obama’s weakness keeps Guantanamo open, Telegraph, 05/01/2013,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10030663/President-Obamas-weakness-keeps-Guantanamo-open.html
And so it does; but the fact that it remains open five years after Barack Obama promised to
is a testament both to the scale of the legal and moral morass it represents, and the president’s own
shut it down
persistent
inability to translate his fine words into action.
Succeeding in closing Guantanamo helps Obama’s legacy—laundry list of
impacts
Human Rights First 12 (Human Rights First, Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan international human rights
organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Accept no government funding. “How to Close Guantanamo—BLUEPRINT
FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION,” December 2012. Web. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf)//MK
The national security imperative to close Guantanamo remains as compelling today—perhaps more so—as it was four years ago
when the president first took office. As the administration ends the war in Afghanistan, new questions will
arise about the legal justifications for continued law of war detention. The Obama Administration
should close Guantanamo on its own terms. On his second day in office, the president promised
to close Guantanamo and reiterated that promise during the recent campaign. Whether he
succeeds will be a significant test for his legacy. There is a path forward. Human Rights First’s threestage plan
offers a strategy for closing Guantanamo during President Obama’s second term that builds on the
successes to-date, ensures national security, adheres to American ideals, and restores U.S.
global leadership on the rule of law.
Link Turns
Failure to close Guantanamo kills Obama’s credibility—action gets it back
Hanson 13 (Victor Davis Hanson, PhD in classics from Stanford University. Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow, tribune
Media Services columnist, ritten or edited twenty-one books, including the New York Times best seller Carnage and Culture:
Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, awarded a National Humanities Medal, and the Bradley Prize. Visiting professor at
the US Naval Academy, Stanford University, Hillsdale College, and Pepperdine University. “Obama’s Bluster Pulpit,” Hoover
Institutional Journal. July 3, 2013. http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/150931)//MK
The terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, like the Iranian nuclear program and the Assad regime,
also earns frequent presidential tough talk. In January 22, 2009, the newly inaugurated President Obama
promised to close Guantánamo Bay within one year: to “restore the standards of due process and the core
constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism.” Yet in the
summer of 2009, Obama granted a six-month extension to his newly formed Guantánamo closing
commission. That delay lasted for nearly two years, as the President signed various executive orders, creating
new review processes for detainees, “to establish, as a discretionary matter, a process to review on a periodic basis the executive
branch’s continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in individual cases.” By April 2011, Obama
ordered terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed back to Guantanamo. In the words of The
Washington Post, that decision marked “the effective abandonment of the president's promise to close
the military detention center.” If, in January 2013, the State Department finally closed the office of the envoy for shutting
down the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Obama nonetheless reiterated in his recent Berlin speech that he would be “redoubling our
efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo.” After years of such bluster about Guantanamo, Iran, and Syria, few
are any longer listening. Former President Bill Clinton, for example, before a supposedly private audience,
recently complained that the president risks appearing like “a total wuss ” over his inaction in Syria. The
president frequently adds familiar emphatics like “make no mistake about it,” “in point of fact,” and “let me be perfectly clear” that in
paradoxical fashion serve as tip-offs that consequences will not follow his tough rhetoric.
Obama looks weak while Guantanamo remains open—closing it gives him more
leverage
Tuttle 7/21 (James Tuttle, 21 years in the Military, retired. “Obama Flounders: Hope Isn’t Enough Without Conviction or
Direction,” Politics. July 21st, 2013. Web. http://misguidedchildren.com/politics/2013/07/obama-flounders-hope-isnt-enough-withoutconviction-or-direction)//MK
Now we are giving aid to the Syrian rebels who eat the hearts of their defeated foes. They behead any of the government troops still
alive. While in Egypt we seem resigned to working with whoever can fill Tabir Square with the most people at the moment.
Immediately after his election in 2008, President elect Obama said in response to a question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes
about the use of executive orders, “I have said repeatedly I intend to close Guantanamo.” Five years later,
prisoners in Guantanamo are trying to starve themselves to death because, whatever he said he
intended, he hasn’t done. He can blame the Republicans all he wants, but as Senator Obama said
in a 2007 debate, “When we have a situation like Guantanamo where we have suspended Habeas
Corpus, to the extent we are not being true to our values and our ideals, that sends a negative
message to the world and gives us less leverage when we want deal with countries who are
abusing human rights.” As they say, “hope” is not a strategy, but it turns out that was and has been
President Obama’s plan for dealing with the world. The Hallmark of great presidents is clarity of vision and purpose or
at least the perception of it. In his best comments as a candidate, Barack Obama offered that like few other political figures of this or
any time. He seemed to believe deeply in his mission, so many Americans believed. Indeed many across the globe agreed.
Obama backed by members of congress—willing to fight
Moran 6/6 (Jim Moran, Virginia congressman. “Moran, 26 Lawmakers Send Letter to Obama Calling for Swift Action to Close
Guantanmo,” press release. June 6, 2013. Web. http://moran.house.gov/press-release/moran-26-lawmakers-send-letter-obamacalling-swift-action-close-guantanmo)//MK
Washington, DC – Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, today led 26 lawmakers in sending a
letter to President Obama applauding his commitment to the closure of Guantanamo and calling for
swift action on his pledge to take steps to close the prison facility. The letter comes in advance of
Appropriations Committee debate on the Fiscal Year 2014 Department of Defense Appropriations Bill, which
contains a number of limitations against transferring detainees out of Guantanamo, including the 86 inmates who have been cleared
for release. Excerpts from the letter include: “You are right to lift the ban on detainee transfers to Yemen and to appoint a new
special envoy with the responsibility of ensuring that detainees are transferred out of Guantanamo. We
also echo your call
for Congress to repeal the unnecessary restrictions on the transfer of detainees. “We are eager to see
you follow through on your strong words with decisive action so that we can move forward to the day when we can finally shut the
doors on this prison. We stand ready to support a serious effort to close Guantanamo.” Joining Moran on the
letter are Representatives James P. McGovern (D-MA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jared Polis (D-CO),
Barbara Lee (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Conyers (D-MI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL), Keith Ellison
(D-MN), Sam Farr (D-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Matthew A. Cartwright (D-PA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Rush Holt
(D-NJ), Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR), Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Donald M. Payne (DNJ), Beto O’Rourke (D-TX), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Joseph Heck (D-NV), and Jim Himes (D-CT). Rep.
Moran has called for closure of Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade and remains one the
strongest voices for the effort. Recently, Moran held yet another briefing to outline steps for the facility’s closure and this
week introduced an amendment to the FY ’14 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill that would have lifted
the prohibition on using funds to renovate any U.S. facilities in order to house Guantanamo detainees. The situation at
Guantanamo Bay’s detention facility has devolved into an immediate humanitarian crisis. 86
prisoners at Guantanamo have been cleared by the U.S. intelligence community for release to other countries because it has been
determined that they don’t pose a national security risk to the U.S. 103 of the 166 prisoners at Guantanamo are
engaged in a hunger strike, with 37 being painfully force-fed through tubes through their noses to
be kept alive against their will.
Squo Links
Support for closing Guantanamo is growing in the status quo
(Reuters 6/9/13, “Support growing to close Guantanamo prison: senator” NBC news,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52149878/ns/politics/t/support-growing-close-guantanamo-prison-senator/#.UfRevOBJBUQ, DS)
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday there is increasing public support for
closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland.¶ "There's
renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready," McCain, who went to Guantanamo last week with
White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's "State of the Union"
program.¶ McCain, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey
Graham, of South Carolina, are working with the Obama administration on plans that could relocate
detainees to a maximum-security prison in Illinois.¶ "We're going to have to look at the whole issue, including
giving them more periodic review of their cases," McCain, of Arizona, said. ¶ President Barack Obama has pushed to close
Guantanamo, saying in a speech in May it "has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." ¶ The
camp holds 166 prisoners picked up in the war on terrorism, most of whom have been held without charges for more than a
decade.¶ McCain and others who favor closing the prison have been unable to overcome opposition in Congress, where many
Republicans say the administration has not offered satisfactory alternatives on what to do with the detainees. ¶ Advertise¶
Meanwhile, detainees have complained of abuse and torture, which the administration denies, while rights activists and international
observers have criticized the government's use of the prison.¶ Obama, a Democrat who promised in his 2008 election campaign to
close the prison, pledged last month to lift a ban imposed on transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, one of the core
obstacles to clearing out the detention camp.¶ Of the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer or release, 56 are from
Yemen, where al Qaeda has a dangerous presence. An unknown number of the 80 other prisoners at the camp who are not cleared
are Yemeni as well.¶ More than 100 prisoners in the camp have joined a hunger strike to protest the failure to resolve their fate after
more than a decade of detention, and 41 are being force-fed through tubes inserted into their noses and down into their stomachs
because they have lost so much weight.
Congress is starting to act now-we post date
Miranda Green 7/24/13, Miranda Green is a reporter for The Daily Beast. She's previously held positions at ABC 7/
Newschannel 8 and CBS's 60 Minutes. She covers politics, business and sustainability., “Senate Hearing to Push for Guantánamo
Closure, Plan to Move Detainees” http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/24/senate-hearing-to-push-for-guantanamoclosure-plan-to-move-detainees.html, DS)
¶ President Obama and Guantánamo Bay prisoners have something in common: they both say they are being held captive by
Congress. But a renewed congressional effort to close the Cuban detention center is seeking to change
that.¶ ¶ ¶ A watchtower is seen in the currently closed Camp X-Ray, which was the first detention facility to hold “enemy
combatants” at the U.S. Naval Station on June 27 in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. (Joe Raedle/Getty)¶ ¶ A Senate committee
hearing scheduled for Wednesday will be the first of significance to address closing Guantánamo
Bay since 2009, when Obama made his first and failed concerted push to shutter the prison. The hearing marks an
amped-up effort by members of Congress to address Guantánamo and to acknowledge current pitfalls within
the system.¶ ¶ “Congress and the administration have been complicit in the current situation, which harms our national security and
leaves more than 150 detainees in limbo. We need to address the future of the prison swiftly and decisively,” Sen. Dick Durbin (D–
Illinois), chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and human rights, which is holding the hearing, told The Daily
Beast in a statement. “This hearing will be the first step toward putting this dark period behind us once and for all.” ¶ ¶ The
hearing is called “Closing Guantánamo: The National Security, Fiscal, and Human Rights Implications,” and if the
name is any indication, it will have a lot of ground to cover. In his speech at the National Defense University in May, Obama
reasserted his commitment to closing the detention camps in Cuba, but a clear proposal for carrying that out has yet to emerge, and
a plan for action after Guantánamo is closed is even more elusive.¶ ¶ ¶ In his most recent major counterterrorism speech, a wideranging address delivered in late May, President Obama reiterated the need to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. ¶ “The problem
that we face is of course almost the same. There are human-rights issues involved and counterterrorism rights involved, and then
there’s the question of where, if you close Guantánamo, the people who are now there go,” Anthony Cordesman, chairman of
strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the issues still on the table. ¶ ¶ Of course suggestions have
been passed around. Most Democrats propose bringing the remaining 166 Guantánamo detainees to the U.S, housing them in highsecurity facilities, and trying those who are fit for trial in military tribunals. ¶ ¶ “Congress needs to accept that at least some
Guantánamo detainees will end up in the U.S. for incarceration or trial in some form,” said Ken Gude, vice president of the Center
for American Progress. “One former Guantánamo detainee is currently residing in the maximum-security facility in Florence,
Colorado, so the world isn’t ending. Congress has to accept that we are a dozen years past 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is dead.” ¶ ¶
Legal barriers now prohibit defense funding from being used to transfer any Guantánamo
detainees to the United States for any reason, including medical. It is that amendment, listed in the National
Defense Authorization Act, that must be changed to start the process of Guantánamo extraditions. ¶ ¶ What proponents of
closing Guantánamo are hoping to see from Wednesday’s hearing is a proposal to address
attacking that NDAA amendment and a follow-up game plan for Guantánamo transfers.
Obama’s taking the blame in the status quo-speech proves
(The Hill 5/22/13, Capitol Hill reporting magazine, “Obama, lawmakers ready to renew push to shutter Guantánamo Bay
prison” http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/301203-obama-lawmakers-ready-to-renew-push-to-shutter-guantanamo-bay DS)
¶ As President Obama gears up for a new push to close Guantánamo Bay, lawmakers from both parties are skeptical the president
will be successful in persuading Congress to shutter the facility. ¶ Obama is delivering a speech on national security Thursday, where
White House officials say he will detail efforts to fulfill a vow that he made in the first week of his presidency. ¶ The president is
making a new push after Congress blocked attempts to close Guantánamo during his first term and placed
additional restrictions on sending detainees out of the facility. ¶ ¶ While supporters of closing the prison are encouraged by the
president’s pledge to return to the issue, they say they haven’t yet heard how he will win over lawmakers opposed to his detention
policies.¶ “Congress has blocked it, so he’s going to have to find a way to remove the blockages of Congress, and hopefully he’ll let
us know how he’ll do that,” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters Tuesday.¶ Levin wrote a letter two weeks ago to the White
House urging the president to do what he can without Congress to close the facility. He wants Obama to appoint an official in charge
of relocating the more than 80 detainees at the camp who have been cleared for release. ¶ Senate Intelligence Committee
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another vocal opponent of Guantánamo, wrote to the White House last month urging a
transfer of the cleared detainees.¶ Levin said that, while the defense authorization bill has restricted the administration’s ability to
transfer detainees, a national security waiver provided a “clear route” to moving detainees to some third countries. ¶ Levin told The
Hill on Tuesday that he had yet to receive a response to his letter. ¶ Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who supports closing Guantánamo,
said he has spoken with the White House recently about its efforts, but complained that a detailed plan has yet to be put forward.¶
“He’s never come up with a viable plan,” McCain said. “We have already committed to try to work with the president to close
Guantánamo. The devil is in the details.”¶ Obama said last month that he “going to go back at this,” and he is expected to lay the
groundwork for plans to close Guantánamo in his Thursday speech, which will also focus on drones, targeted killing and the war
against al Qaeda.¶ “I think it is critical for us to understand that Guantánamo is not necessary to keep
America safe,” Obama said. “It is expensive. It is inefficient. ... It is a recruitment tool for
extremists. It needs to be closed.”¶ White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama “is
determined to see the facility closed, and that he will address that subject in his speech.Ӧ White
House officials have said that the president is considering a range of options, including reappointing an official to the vacant State
Department position for moving detainees, as lawmakers have called for.
Link Shield
Obama appointed a minion to do the plan-that takes the blame
(Abby D. Philip, 6/17/13, ABCNews, politics reporter, “‘Bridge-Builder’ Lawyer Picked to Spearhead Guantanamo Closing,”
‘Bridge-Builder’ Lawyer Picked to Spearhead Guantanamo Closing http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/bridge-builderlawyer-picked-to-spearhead-guantanamo-closing/ DS)
Cliff Sloan, a top Washington lawyer, has been chosen as the State Department’s special envoy to close
Guantanamo Bay, marking a step forward in what has been an arduous effort to fulfill President Obama’s campaign promise to
close the prison.¶ “This announcement reflects the administration’s commitment to closing the
detention facility at Guantanamo Bay,” said State Department spokesman Jen Psaki today.¶ “Special Envoy Sloan
brings a wealth of experience as an accomplished litigator and pragmatic problem-solver, a skill set
that will prove valuable as he serves as the lead negotiator for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees abroad and manages the
multitude of diplomatic issues related to the president’s directives to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, implement
transfer determination and conduct a periodic review of those detainees who are not approved for transfer.” ¶ Sloan, a partner at
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates, has served in both President George H.W. Bush and
President Bill Clinton’s administrations in the Justice Department and as associate White House counsel.¶
The news of Sloan’s appointment was first reported by The Associated Press on Sunday.¶ Secretary of State John Kerry praised
Sloan in a statement Sunday as the type of “bridge-builder” needed for the role.¶ “It will not be easy, but if anyone can effectively
navigate the space between agencies and branches of government, it’s Cliff,” Kerry said, according to the Associated Press. “I
appreciate his willingness to take on this challenge. Cliff and I share the president’s conviction that Guantanamo’s continued
operation isn’t in our security interests.”
War on Terror Answers
Aff Uq
War on terror officially ended by Obama
Shapiro 13 (Ben, American conservative political commentator, radio talk show host, attorney, and media consultant. A native
of Los Angeles, Shapiro graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard Law School. He has written five
books, starting with Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth in 2004, writes a column for Creators Syndicate,
and is editor-at-large of Breitbart News., “Obama Declares War on Terror Over,” Townhall.com, May 29,
2013,http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/05/29/obama-declares-war-on-terror-over-n1607729) SS
In a hallmark speech last week, President Obama unilaterally declared the war on terror over. The end of
that war, Obama stated, meant we could return to the halcyon days of the Clinton-era law
enforcement, during which America experienced a spate of terrorist attacks ranging from the first attack on the World Trade
Center in 1993 to the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 to
the USS Cole bombing in 2000.
Obama says the War on terror is over
McFarland 13 (Kathleen Troia “K.T.,” a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's "DefCon 3." She is a
Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford
and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinberger’s November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid
out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3"-- already one of
the Web's most watched national security programs., “Obama thinks we won the War on Terror and it's time to move on,” FOX
News Network, LLC, May 23, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/23/obama-thinks-won-war-on-terror-and-it-time-tomove-on/) SS
President Obama delivered what was billed by the White House as a “major” speech on national
security Thursday at the historic National Defense University. In short, Mr. Obama thinks the War
on Terror is over, and he won it. There may be a few final details to mop about, but it's time to
move on to more important things.
Non-unique – already tons of terrorists domestically
AlterNet, 2009 (Alternet, “Top 5 Myths About Closing Guantanamo”, AlterNet, 1/27/09,
http://www.alternet.org/story/122895/top_5_myths_about_closing_guantanamo?page=0%2C0)
MYTH #2 -- DETAINEES ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO BRING INTO THE UNITED STATES: This
myth is the one that
conservatives cite most often. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has said that transferring Guantanamo
detainees to U.S. soil "will endanger American lives." Yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, Boehner said that it
would be "irresponsible" to transfer these "terrorists who have attempted to kill Americans." This morning, Fox and Friends took
pictures of various terrorists and went around to Pennsylvania residents and asked them if they wanted these people living in their
"backyards." However, U.S. federal prisons are already home to dozens of the most dangerous
terrorists the world has ever known. As Salon's Glenn Greenwald has written, "Both before and after 9/11,
the U.S. has repeatedly and successfully tried alleged high-level Al Qaeda operatives and other
accused Islamic Terrorists in our normal federal courts -- in fact, the record is far more successful
than the series of debacles that has taken place in the military commissions system at
Guantanamo." In fact, there have been 145 terrorist convictions in federal courts since 9/11. Colorado Gov.
Bill Ritter (D) has said that he wouldn't necessarily oppose transferring detainees who are convicted terrorists headed to
trial to the state's "Supermax", a role that the prison is already playing and that CAP recommended in its
report. Rep. John Murtha (R-PA) has also expressed a willingness to bring some detainees into his district, stating, "I mean,
they're no more dangerous in a prison in my district than they are in Guantanamo ."
No Link
Closing Guantanamo will NOT lead to former prisoners engaging in
terrorist activity
Susan Seligson, master’s in journalism at BU’s College of Communication, 5-28-13, “Guantanamo: the Legal Mess Behind
the Ethical Mess,” BU Today, interviewed in this article is Susan M. Akram, a School of Law clinical professor of law and former
executive director of Boston’s Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legalmess-behind-the-ethical-mess/
Do you think estimates are accurate that a significant percentage of released Gitmo detainees have participated in terrorism since
their release?¶ There are conflicting statistics of the recidivism rate of the detainees, as well as what is meant by returning to terrorist
activity. In 2009, the New York Times reported that an unreleased Pentagon report claimed that one in seven of the detainees
released from Guantanamo was involved in terrorism upon return. If that number is accurate, that represents about 14 percent of the
released detainees. However, in two comprehensive studies of Defense Department information, Seton Hall Law School
professor Mark Denbeaux concluded that the government’s definition of terrorist activity was so broad as to include “antiUS propaganda” and giving press interviews. And in 2012, John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, stated that of
the approximately 50 detainees the Obama administration released, none was suspected or returning to terrorist activity. It is
also important to remember that 92 percent of the Guantanamo detainees were never al-Qaeda fighters in the first place, so if they
return to terrorism, it is likely that it is their treatment at Guantanamo that radicalized them.
No one goes back to terror
AlterNet, 2009 (Alternet, “Top 5 Myths About Closing Guantanamo”, AlterNet, 1/27/09,
http://www.alternet.org/story/122895/top_5_myths_about_closing_guantanamo?page=0%2C0)
MYTH #4 -- 61 RELEASED DETAINEES HAVE RETURNED TO THE BATTLEFIELD: One conservative talking point that has been
especially effective at making its way into traditional media reporting is that 61 "of the people that were
incarcerated at Guantanamo and then released have returned to the battlefield, have engaged in
further terrorist activities," as CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said yesterday. The Associated Press has
made a similar claim. But in fact, as Media Matters has reported, "according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee
figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having
'return[ed] to the fight.'" Bergen has also noted that "returning to the fight" could simply mean
writing a negative op-ed. Mark Denbeaux, Director of the Seton Hall Law School Center for Policy and Research, has been
tracking the Bush administration's claims. He told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, " Their numbers have changed from 20 to
12 to seven to more than five to two to a couple to a few -- 25, 29, 12 to 24. Every time, the number
has been different. In fact, every time they give a number, they don't identify a date, a place, a
time, a name or an incident to support their claim."
Link Turn – Recruitment
Guantanamo serves as a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations
HRF 12 (Human Rights First, December 2012, independent advocacy and action organization that challenges America to live up
to its ideals, How to close Guantanamo, Online, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf, page 1, accessed 7/27/13) PE
As recently as this past October, President Obama¶ reiterated his conviction that Guantanamo
should be¶
closed. Failure to close Guantanamo risks inflicting a¶ blot on U.S. leadership and
counterterrorism policy for¶ years to come. Guantanamo remains a recruiting tool for¶ al Qaeda and
affiliated terrorist groups, placing U.S¶ troops and the nation at risk. Key U.S. allies oppose the¶ detention and trial
system at Guantanamo, and the¶ United States may be unable to secure extradition of ¶ terrorism
suspects if the result will be military detention¶ or trial by military commission there. In an era of budget¶ austerity,
operating Guantanamo at a cost $150 million¶ per year, more than thirty times the cost of keeping¶ captives on U.S. soil, is fiscally
irresponsible when most¶ detainees are already set for transfer.2
Link Turn – Strategy
Closing the prison puts counterterrorism policies back on track
Human Rights First 12 (Human Rights First, Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan international human rights
organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Accept no government funding. “How to Close Guantanamo—BLUEPRINT
FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION,” December 2012. Web. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf)//MK
The imperative to close Guantanamo has increased as the United States prepares for the end of
major combat operations in Afghanistan—the conflict in which most of the Guantanamo detainees were captured a
decade or more ago. The United States is already transitioning detention operations in Afghanistan to the
Afghans. By closing Guantanamo, the Obama Administration will align its policy objectives with a
forward-looking post-war counterterrorism strategy that does not depend on maintaining active
military detention facilities. Moreover, Guantanamo detainees are being held under the 2001
Authorization for Use of Military Force, which provides detention authority only while hostilities
are ongoing. As major combat operations in Afghanistan come to an end and the secretary of defense and
other national security officials talk of the “strategic defeat” of core al Qaeda, courts are likely to take a renewed
interest in whether there remains authority to hold Guantanamo detainees. Closing Guantanamo
will help to place counterterrorism policies on a more stable and durable legal footing.
A2 “Recidivism”
No turn – recidivism rates are inflated – no more than in normal prisons
Froomkin, 11 (contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior Washington correspondent for the Huffington
Post. He wrote the White House Watch column for the Washington Post website from 2004 to 2009, and was editor of the site from
2000 to 2003, Report Challenges Purported Guantanamo 'Recidivism' Figures, 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET, Online,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/guantanamo-recidivism-report-challenge_n_807690.html, accessed 7/27/13) PE
WASHINGTON -- On the ninth anniversary of the first detainee's arrival at the infamous prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a
Washington think tank challenged intelligence estimates suggesting that large numbers of former detainees have taken up arms
against the United States.¶ Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claimed in December -- without offering any
evidence -- that 13.5 percent of former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed, and an additional 11.5
percent are suspected of "reengaging" in terrorist or insurgent activities after their release. ¶ The
conservative media embraced the storyline that as many as one in four former detainees had returned to the battlefield, up sharply
from the prior year.¶ But three scholars with the New America Foundation are out with a new report -this one backed up with data -- concluding that only 6 percent of released detainees engaged or are
suspected of having engaged with insurgents aimed at attacking U.S. interests. Another 2 percent
engaged or are suspected of having engaged against non-U.S. targets.¶ Members of a NAF panel Tuesday afternoon also
challenged the notion that some detainees "returned" to the battlefield, noting that many were innocent to begin with. ¶ Tom Wilner, a
Washington attorney who argued on behalf of Guantanamo detainees in the Supreme Court's 2004 and 2008 cases in which they
won habeas corpus rights, described the plight of one of his former clients, a Kuwaiti named Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi ¶ . ¶ "I was
absolutely convinced that he did not do anything wrong," Wilner said. "But I was concerned about his release, because he had
become furious. He had turned, at Guantanamo, into this sort of madman." ¶ And indeed, less than three years after the Bush
Administration sent him back to Kuwait, Al Ajmi carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq.¶ British freelance journalist Andy Worthington,
who tracks Guantanamo detainees, said he was concerned at how the recidivism figures were "conjured up out of nowhere" but
treated as fact by many mainstream media outlets. "It's bad journalism," he said. ¶ Most reports also lacked context. "You don't
have anything like a zero recidivism rate in any prison system," he said.¶ The figures were cited by
conservatives in their arguments against closing Guantanamo. Democrats, afraid of the political repercussions, joined with
Republicans to include provisions in the latest defense authorization bill intended to prevent Obama from closing Guantanamo. ¶
Obama last week called those provisions "dangerous and unprecedented." ¶ "Every day that a place like Guantanamo is open is an
insult to values that decent American people hold," Worthington said.¶ "I am furious and ashamed," Wilner said. "I think
Guantanamo is a symbol for fear and weakness."