Disads
War on Terror DA
1nc
Low risk of terrorist attack on US-studies prove
Shinkman 12 (Paul D., Washington newsman, naturalized Capitol Hill citizen, now national security reporter at
US News & World Report. Formerly with WTOP News, “Study: U.S. at 'Low' Risk of Terror Attack,” U.S.News &
World Report LP, December 5, 2012, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2012/12/05/study-america-hasrelatively-low-chance-of-terrorist-attack-) SS
In an era of terrorist plots and WMD proliferation, this news may come as a slight relief: Among countries with the
highest risk of terrorist attacks, the United States ranks "relatively low," according to a new study. The
University of Maryland collected data on 104,000 instances of terrorism in 158 nations, and ranked the
likelihood of each country witnessing a terrorist attack within its borders. Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan
earn the top positions. The U.S. slides in at No. 41. "In global terms, this is a relatively low level of activity,"
according to the study, first reported by The Washington Times . "North America is the least-likely region to
be involved in a terrorist attack, though this is not the general impression among many of its residents," says
Steve Killelea with the Institute for Economics and Peace, which published the study using statistics and
analysis from the University of Maryland's National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses
to Terrorism . "The fatality rate in the U.S. is 19 times lower than Western Europe," he tells the Times. "Still,
the level of terrorism elsewhere is too high. We're hoping the index can prompt a practical debate about the future
of terrorism and some appropriate policy responses." Major U.S. allies land much higher on the list. Britain is
ranked 28th, behind Turkey and Israel, which are 19th and 20th, respectively. The Philippines just squeaks
into the top 10, right behind Russia at No. 9.
GITMO is a vital internal link to strategic intelligence, which is key to the war on terror.
Meese 2012 (Edwin, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and chairman of the Center for
Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He served as the 75th attorney general of the United States
under President Reagan, Guantanamo Bay prison is necessary, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/11/opinion/meese-gitmo)
The detention and interrogation facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, which I have visited, has served and continues to serve an
important role in the war against terrorists since it opened 10 years ago. It houses high-value terrorist detainees, like Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed, the architect of September 11. The military commissions' courthouse, called the Expeditionary Legal
Compound, is a world-class, state-of-the-art facility specifically designed to accommodate the needs of both
defense and prosecutors dealing with classified information. The detainees there are represented by civilian and military
counsel, and the Supreme Court has ruled that they enjoy the constitutional right of habeas corpus. The conditions of detention there
are safe, secure and humane and comply with national and international standards , including Common Article 3 of
the Geneva Conventions. It is important to remember that the United States of America is engaged in armed conflict and has been since
September 11, 2001. The September 18, 2001, Authorization for Use of Military Force, relied upon by both the Bush and Obama administrations,
gives our military the legal authority to engage the enemy under appropriate circumstances. Under the law of armed conflict, also called the law
of war, engaging the enemy includes killing or capturing the enemy. This age-old principle -- detention of the enemy during wartime for the
duration of hostilities -- is just as applicable to al Qaeda as it was to Nazi POWs in World War II or other enemies in previous wars. This
principle has been upheld by our courts, including the United States Supreme Court. Shortly after September 11, it became evident that this
war would be different from all previous wars in the sense that we would need to rely more on tactical and
strategic intelligence to thwart and defeat the enemy than traditional military might. To defeat al Qaeda and
its affiliates, we needed to know what they knew; one of the obvious ways to learn their intentions was
through lawful interrogation at a safe detention facility. Guantanamo , used as a detention facility since the Clinton
administration, was just such a place. Former detainee recalls time at Gitmo Guantanamo Bay's past and future There have been 779
detainees at Guantanamo. Today, there are only 171. But over the past decade, we have not only kept dangerous terrorists
at Guantanamo and thus away from the battlefield, we have learned a great deal from them during longterm, lawful interrogations. Without a safe, secure detention and interrogation facility , we would not have
gained the tactical and strategic intelligence needed to degrade and ultimately defeat the enemy. A look at
Guantanamo Bay prison It has been said that the mere existence of Guantanamo is a recruiting tool for the enemy.
However, recall that there was no Guantanamo detention facility when al Qaeda bombed the World Trade
Center in the 1990s or blew up the U.S. embassies in East Africa in 1998 or attacked the USS Cole in 2000 . And
I suspect that if the Bush administration had brought the Guantanamo detainees not to Cuba but to a detention facility in the United States, that
facility would have been the object of their scorn and derision. All things considered, the detention facility at Guantanamo
Bay has played an invaluable role in the war against terrorists by keeping them off the battlefield and
allowing for lawful interrogations.
Nuclear terrorism escalates to major nuclear war. Global coop on material transfers is key.
Ayson 10 (Robert – Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand
at the Victoria University of Wellington – “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects,” Studies
in Conflict & Terrorism, Volume 33, Issue 7, July, obtained via InformaWorld)
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by the country attacked in the first place, would not necessarily
represent the worst of the nuclear worlds imaginable. Indeed, there are reasons to wonder whether nuclear terrorism should ever be regarded as
belonging in the category of truly existential threats. A contrast can be drawn here with the global catastrophe that would come from a massive
nuclear exchange between two or more of the sovereign states that possess these weapons in significant numbers. Even the worst terrorism that
the twenty-first century might bring would fade into insignificance alongside considerations of what a general nuclear war would have wrought in
the Cold War period. And it must be admitted that as long as the major nuclear weapons states have hundreds and even thousands of nuclear
weapons at their disposal, there is always the possibility of a truly awful nuclear exchange taking place precipitated entirely by state possessors
themselves. But these two nuclear worlds—a non-state actor nuclear attack and a catastrophic interstate nuclear
exchange—are not necessarily separable. It is just possible that some sort of terrorist attack, and especially an act of nuclear
terrorism, could precipitate a chain of events leading to a massive exchange of nuclear weapons between two
or more of the states that possess them. In this context, today’s and tomorrow’s terrorist groups might assume the place allotted during the
early Cold War years to new state possessors of small nuclear arsenals who were seen as raising the risks of a catalytic nuclear war between the
superpowers started by third parties. These risks were considered in the late 1950s and early 1960s as concerns grew about nuclear proliferation,
the so-called n+1 problem. It may require a considerable amount of imagination to depict an especially plausible situation where an act of nuclear
terrorism could lead to such a massive inter-state nuclear war. For example, in the event of a terrorist nuclear attack on the United States, it might
well be wondered just how Russia and/or China could plausibly be brought into the picture, not least because they seem unlikely to be fingered as
the most obvious state sponsors or encouragers of terrorist groups. They would seem far too responsible to be involved in supporting that sort of
terrorist behavior that could just as easily threaten them as well. Some possibilities, however remote, do suggest themselves. For example, how
might the United States react if it was thought or discovered that the fissile material used in the act of nuclear
terrorism had come from Russian stocks,
FN 40
and if for some reason Moscow denied any responsibility for nuclear laxity?
The correct attribution of that nuclear material to a particular country might not be a case of science fiction given the observation by Michael May
et al. that while the debris resulting from a nuclear explosion would be “spread over a wide area in tiny fragments, its radioactivity makes it
detectable, identifiable and collectable, and a wealth of information can be obtained from its analysis: the efficiency of the explosion, the
materials used and, most important … some indication of where the nuclear material came from.”41 Alternatively, if the act of nuclear terrorism
came as a complete surprise, and American officials refused to believe that a terrorist group was fully responsible (or responsible at all) suspicion
would shift immediately to state possessors. Ruling out Western ally countries like the United Kingdom and France, and probably Israel and India
as well, authorities in Washington would be left with a very short list consisting of North Korea, perhaps Iran if its program continues, and
possibly Pakistan. But at what stage would Russia and China be definitely ruled out in this high stakes game of nuclear Cluedo? In particular, if
the act of nuclear terrorism occurred against a backdrop of existing tension in Washington’s relations with Russia
and/or China, and at a time when threats had already been traded between these major powers, would officials and political leaders not
be tempted to assume the worst? Of course, the chances of this occurring would only seem to increase if the United States was already
involved in some sort of limited armed conflict with Russia and/or China, or if they were confronting each other from a distance in a proxy war,
as unlikely as these developments may seem at the present time. The reverse might well apply too: should a nuclear terrorist attack occur in
Russia or China during a period of heightened tension or even limited conflict with the United States, could Moscow and Beijing resist the
pressures that might rise domestically to consider the United States as a possible perpetrator or encourager of the attack? Washington’s early
response to a terrorist nuclear attack on its own soil might also raise the possibility of an unwanted (and nuclear
aided) confrontation with Russia and/or China. For example, in the noise and confusion during the immediate aftermath of the
terrorist nuclear attack, the U.S. president might be expected to place the country’s armed forces, including its nuclear arsenal, on a
higher stage of alert. In such a tense environment, when careful planning runs up against the friction of reality, it is just possible that
Moscow and/or China might mistakenly read this as a sign of U.S. intentions to use force (and possibly nuclear
force) against them. In that situation, the temptations to preempt such actions might grow, although it must be admitted that any
preemption would probably still meet with a devastating response. As part of its initial response to the act of nuclear terrorism (as discussed
earlier) Washington might decide to order a significant conventional (or nuclear) retaliatory or disarming attack against the
leadership of the terrorist group and/or states seen to support that group. Depending on the identity and especially the location of these
targets, Russia and/or China might interpret such action as being far too close for their comfort, and potentially as
an infringement on their spheres of influence and even on their sovereignty. One far-fetched but perhaps not impossible scenario
might stem from a judgment in Washington that some of the main aiders and abetters of the terrorist action resided somewhere such as Chechnya,
perhaps in connection with what Allison claims is the “Chechen insurgents’ … long-standing interest in all things nuclear.”42 American pressure
on that part of the world would almost certainly raise alarms in Moscow that might require a degree of advanced consultation from Washington
that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.There is also the question of how other nuclear-armed states respond to the act of nuclear
terrorism on another member of that special club. It could reasonably be expected that following a nuclear terrorist attack on the United States,
both Russia and China would extend immediate sympathy and support to Washington and would work alongside the United States in the Security
Council. But there is just a chance, albeit a slim one, where the support of Russia and/or China is less automatic in some cases than in others. For
example, what would happen if the United States wished to discuss its right to retaliate against groups based in their territory? If, for some reason,
Washington found the responses of Russia and China deeply underwhelming, (neither “for us or against us”) might it also suspect that they
secretly were in cahoots with the group, increasing (again perhaps ever so slightly) the chances of a major exchange. If the terrorist group had
some connections to groups in Russia and China, or existed in areas of the world over which Russia and China held sway, and if Washington felt
that Moscow or Beijing were placing a curiously modest level of pressure on them, what conclusions might it then draw about their culpability? If
Washington decided to use, or decided to threaten the use of, nuclear weapons, the responses of Russia and China would be crucial to the chances
of avoiding a more serious nuclear exchange. They might surmise, for example, that while the act of nuclear terrorism was especially heinous and
demanded a strong response, the response simply had to remain below the nuclear threshold. It would be one thing for a non-state actor to have
broken the nuclear use taboo, but an entirely different thing for a state actor, and indeed the leading state in the international system, to do so. If
Russia and China felt sufficiently strongly about that prospect, there is then the question of what options would lie open to them to dissuade the
United States from such action: and as has been seen over the last several decades, the central dissuader of the use of nuclear weapons by states
has been the threat of nuclear retaliation. If some readers find this simply too fanciful, and perhaps even offensive to contemplate, it may be
informative to reverse the tables. Russia, which possesses an arsenal of thousands of nuclear warheads and that has been one of the
two most important trustees of the non-use taboo, is subjected to an attack of nuclear terrorism. In response, Moscow places its
nuclear forces very visibly on a higher state of alert and declares that it is considering the use of nuclear retaliation against the group and any of
its state supporters. How would Washington view such a possibility? Would it really be keen to support Russia’s use of nuclear
weapons, including outside Russia’s traditional sphere of influence? And if not, which seems quite plausible, what options would Washington
have to communicate that displeasure? If China had been the victim of the nuclear terrorism and seemed likely to retaliate in kind, would the
United States and Russia be happy to sit back and let this occur? In the charged atmosphere immediately after a nuclear terrorist attack,
how would the attacked country respond to pressure from other major nuclear powers not to respond in kind?
The phrase “how dare they tell us what to do” immediately springs to mind. Some might even go so far as to interpret this concern as a tacit form
might not help the chances of nuclear restraint. FN 40 . One way of
reducing, but probably not eliminating, such a prospect, is further international cooperation on the control of
existing fissile material holdings.
of sympathy or support for the terrorists. This
Ext. Winning WOT Now
We are winning the War on Terror Now
Dreyfuss 13 (Robert, a Nation contributing editor, is an investigative journalist in Alexandria, Virginia,
specializing in politics and national security. He is the author of Devil's Game: How the United States Helped
Unleash Fundamentalist Islam and is a frequent contributor to Rolling Stone, The American Prospect and Mother
Jones., “Despite Boston, Terror Is at an All-Time Low,” The Nation, April 27, 2013,
http://www.thenation.com/blog/173876/despite-boston-terror-all-time-low#) SS
The headline in today’s New York Times had to be read twice to make sure that’s what it really said: “Blasts End A
Decade of Terrorism on the Wane.” Yes. On the wane. You probably didn’t know that over the past ten years
there has been very little significant terrorism in the United States. As I've written repeatedly, terrorism
today—here at home, not in, say, Iraq—is just a nuisance, nothing more. In 2004, John Kerry, running for
president, said that the then-infinite War on Terror would be won when terrorism was reduced to the status
of being a deadly nuisance rather an a constant crisis. By 2004, of course, it already was. The Times, in its
lede, says this: The bombing of the Boston Marathon on Monday was the end of more than a decade in which
the United States experienced strikingly few terrorist attacks, in part because of the far more aggressive law
enforcement tactics that arose after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Well. It adds: In fact, the Sept. 11 attacks were
an anomaly in an overall gradual decline in the number of terrorist attacks since the 1970s, according to the
Global Terrorism Database, one of the most authoritative sources of terrorism statistics, which is maintained
by a consortium of researchers and based at the University of Maryland. The worst decade for terrorism in
the United States? The 1970s. The horrible bombings in Boston killed more people, three, than any incident of
terrorism except 9/11, the 1993 World Trade Center attack, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, and “the poisoning of
restaurant salad bars with salmonella bacteria by religious cultists in Oregon in 1984.” The paper quotes Gary
LaFree, the researcher who helps compile the date base, thus: I think people are actually surprised when they
learn that there’s been a steady decline in terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 1970. And it adds this stunner from
LaFree: He said there were about 40 percent more attacks in the United States in the decade before Sept. 11
than in the decade after.
War on terror successful for US
Black 12 (Conrad, Canadian-born former newspaper publisher, a historian, a columnist,[n 1] and a non-affiliated
life peer.[n 2] Black controlled Hollinger International, once the world’s third-largest English-language newspaper
empire,[3] which published The Daily Telegraph (UK), Chicago Sun Times (U.S.), The Jerusalem Post (Israel),
National Post (Canada), The Sydney Morning Herald (Australia), and hundreds of community newspapers in North
America., “Lost Decade Is the Price of Success in War on Terror,” TWO SL LLC, April 19, 2012,
http://www.nysun.com/foreign/lost-decade-is-the-price-of-success-in-war/87793/)
It must be said that the War on Terror has substantially been a success. After the 9/11 atrocities, the
conventional wisdom — which was reflected in the claims of bin Laden and others in their bloodcurdling
videos — was that terrorism would be routine and devastating against any countries that displeased militant
Islam. There was the fear and the promise of unlimited numbers of suicide attackers. But despite close calls
over Detroit (the panty-bomber) and in Times Square, and doubtless many quietly foiled efforts, there has
been no return to terrorism in North America, and very little in Latin America. Even in Europe and
Australasia, prime targets, there has not been much beyond the London buses, Madrid commuter trains, and the
Australian-frequented bar in Bali. The Israelis stopped the suicide bombing in their country by killing the
outstanding surviving Hamas leader after each outrage; lo and behold, the eagerness for heroic violent death did not
extend to those commissioning the suicide attacks, as bin Laden and the rest cowered and skulked in caves or
anonymously behind high walls. Thus, the principal raison d’être of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars has been
achieved, though it is not clear that the nearly $2 trillion and about 7,000 American and Western Allied lives
expended in those wars were essential to the accomplishment of that objective. George W. Bush led a 44-nation
U.N. and NATO coalition into Afghanistan and then left it stretched over that poor and unfeasible country and
decamped to Iraq to dispose of Saddam Hussein, a commendable objective justified in international law by his
violation of the Gulf War ceasefire and 17 Security Council resolutions, but not one that had much to do with
terrorism. The nostrum of starting a positive tipping-over of non-democratic dominoes with Iraq has been a disaster,
as it produced Hamas in government in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Anwar Sadat’s murderers (the Muslim
Brotherhood) in Egypt, and anarchy in Yemen with a noisy al-Qaeda terrorist presence; and Iraq itself is far from the
Denmark-on-the-Euphrates the Bush administration was predicting. In 2011, only 1,500 Iraqis died of political
violence, the lowest total since Saddam’s time. But the road, rail, and air transport facilities remain in shambles,
millions of households are left without power for up to 20 hours a day, tankers can’t dock near Basra because of the
size of bribes that are extorted from them, and the nearly $60 billion that the U.S. spent in Iraq on reconstruction
seems to have been consumed almost entirely by anti-blast barricades. The former electricity minister, Raad Shalal,
was fired last year for embezzling $1.7 billion (in an Iraqi GDP of $80 billion, that’s like a $300 billion theft by an
American public official), and the Fertile Crescent, where cultivated agriculture originated, at least in the Western
world, now imports 80% of its food. The Iraqi prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is in his second term, though he lost
the last election, and is still trying to arrest his former chief coalition partner, who is beyond apprehension because
he is in the capital of the rebarbative province of Kurdistan. Though comparisons to Vietnam are nonsense, because
the United States was completely militarily successful in Iraq — with volunteer armed forces on a congressionally
authorized mission, with fewer than 10% of the casualties in Vietnam, and with the government it left behind not
under full-scale invasion by another country, as South Vietnam was — it is not clear that the U.S. will ultimately
have much more to show for its effort in Iraq than it does for Vietnam. Nor is it clear that there was any point to the
Iraq War after Saddam was got rid of. Baghdad recently successfully hosted an Arab League meeting, though twelve
of the 22 member countries did not attend because they think Maliki is too much under the influence of Iran, which
is not why the United States fought the war there. The meeting was a milestone of sorts, as the occasion for a $1
billion municipal cleanup, and security was successfully maintained by 100,000 troops and police.
The US has been winning the war on terror
Lehrer 11 (Eli, Vice President of Washington D.C. operations for the Heartland Institute, “Despite Threats, We’re
Winning the War on Terror,” FrumForum.com, September 12, 2011,http://www.frumforum.com/despite-threatswere-winning-the-war-on-terror/) SS
Since the enormous carnage of 9/11, the major Islamist terror attacks outside of the Middle East have shown a
great decline in sophistication and lethality. While hundreds died in 2002′s Bali club bombings and 2004′s Madrid
train bombings, the last major coordinated Islamist attack on the West, 2005′s London transport bombings, was a
reasonably simple operation that killed only 54. Since then, not a single al-Qaeda plot directed at the West has
succeeded in killing anyone. (The organization has continued to do a great deal of damage in Iraq and a
deranged individual with radical Islamist sympathies murdered a solider in Arkansas 2 years ago.) The 9/11
plot cost several million dollars and involved 20 people on the ground in the United States with, likely, hundreds
more in supporting roles in Afghanistan. A car bombing can be rigged for a few thousand dollars by one or two
people. While a car bomb would be a cause for concern and a tragedy, even a successful one that left scores of
dead bodies wouldn’t have an impact anything like 9/11. In short, if the intelligence reports are right, there’s a
good deal of evidence that the West is winning the War on Terror. Of course, there’s no way to be absolutely
certain of al-Qaeda’s capacities and, by definition, the best information about terror attacks isn’t public knowledge.
But, if current media reports are to be believed, there’s certainly reason to believe that we’re safer from
terrorist attacks than we were ten years ago.
Ext. GITMO Key/Solves
Enhanced interrogation key to war on terror, stopped West Coast 9/11 equivalent and
other terror attacks
Thiessen 2011 Mark, columnist for Washington Post and visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute,
former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfield, The CIA's Questioning Worked, The Washington
Post, 4/21/2009, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-04-21/opinions/36894735_1_ksm-interrogations-abuzubaydah
Specifically, interrogation with enhanced techniques "led to the discovery of a KSM plot, the 'Second Wave,'
'to use East Asian operatives to crash a hijacked airliner into' a building in Los Angeles." KSM later
acknowledged before a military commission at Guantanamo Bay that the target was the Library Tower, the
tallest building on the West Coast. The memo explains that "information obtained from KSM also led to the
capture of Riduan bin Isomuddin, better known as Hambali, and the discovery of the Guraba Cell, a 17-member
Jemmah Islamiyah cell tasked with executing the 'Second Wave.' " In other words, without enhanced
interrogations, there could be a hole in the ground in Los Angeles to match the one in New York. The memo
notes that "[i]nterrogations of [Abu] Zubaydah -- again, once enhanced techniques were employed -- furnished
detailed information regarding al Qaeda's 'organizational structure, key operatives, and modus operandi'
and identified KSM as the mastermind of the September 11 attacks." This information helped the intelligence
community plan the operation that captured KSM. It went on: "Zubaydah and KSM also supplied important
information about al-Zarqawi and his network" in Iraq, which helped our operations against al-Qaeda in that
country.
Here’s reverse causal evidence that a lack of interrogation has caused near misses, that can
only get worse in the world of the plan
Thiessen 2011 Mark, columnist for Washington Post and visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute,
former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfield, The CIA's Questioning Worked, The Washington
Post, 04/21/2009, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-04-21/opinions/36894735_1_ksm-interrogations-abuzubaydah
This is more than a historical argument. Twice during President Obama’s first term in office, al-Qaeda’s affiliate
in Yemen, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), has succeeded in getting bombs onto planes headed for
the United States. In December 2009, this network nearly succeeded in blowing up Northwest Airlines Flight 253 as
it prepared to land in Detroit, Michigan. Disaster was averted only because the bomb malfunctioned. Less than one
year after the attempted attack in Detroit, AQAP penetrated our defenses a second time—this time getting two
package bombs aboard planes headed for the United States, timed to blow up over the eastern seaboard. Disaster
was averted only because of a last-minute tip from Saudi intelligence that allowed us to track down the explosives
before they went off. By the Obama administration’s own admission, it was completely unaware that AQAP
had developed the capability or intent to attack us here in America. Notwithstanding the successful drone strike
that killed Anwar al-Awlaki, the fact is that since 2008, the United States has carried out just fourteen drone
strikes against al-Qaeda in Yemen. During that same period, by contrast, the US has carried out 258 drone
strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan, operations that have killed fifty-six senior leaders and hundreds of mid- and
lower-level operatives. Why have there been so many successful strikes against al-Qaeda in Pakistan but so few in
Yemen? Clearly the United States has much greater insight into the location and operations of al-Qaeda in South
Asia than it does on the Arabian Peninsula. The reason we have so little information about this virulent new
terror network is that, unlike in the period immediately after 9/11, the United States is no long capturing and
interrogating high-value terrorists who could tell us about their plans to attack the homeland. President Obama
shut down the CIA interrogation program with an executive order. That order could be rescinded by his
successor with the stroke of a pen. Which means the debate over the effectiveness and necessity of enhanced
interrogation is far from over.
Gitmo key to information and US nation security, can’t close
Wiser, 2013 (Daniel Wiser, Current: Editorial Intern at The Washington Free Beacon, Editorial Intern at National
Journalism Center Past:State & National Editor at The Daily Tar Heel, Editorial Intern at The Washington Times,
Assistant State & National Editor at The Daily T... Education: UNC Chapel Hill, Georgetown University Summary:
Aspiring writer, reporter and editor with a passion for politics, culture, and the marketplace of ideas, “Congressman
Says Closing Guantanamo Bay Would Be a Mistake”, Free Beacon , 7/9/13, http://freebeacon.com/congressmansays-closing-guantanamo-bay-would-be-a-mistake/)
Prematurely closing the controversial detention facility at Guantanamo Bay would release the most dangerous
terrorists currently held by the United States and pose a grave national security threat, according to one
representative who recently visited the facility. Rep. Mike Pompeo (R., Kan.) discussed the conditions and legal
status of the 166 Guantanamo detainees at an American Enterprise Institute event Tuesday. More than 100 of those
prisoners have been protesting for their release by participating in hunger strikes, leading President Barack Obama
to renew his call for congressional authorization to close the facility in a May national security speech. Pompeo said
the president’s latest push ignores the histories of those detained at Guantanamo. Remaining prisoners include
terrorists linked to the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, leaders of the Taliban, mid-level al Qaeda officials,
and operatives from various countries who have plotted attacks. “There’s a reason the president’s promise to
close Guantanamo has not occurred,” he said. “The challenge is that the detainees at Guantanamo who
remain are all individuals who America considers to be dangerous. The easy cases are absolutely behind us.”
Critics of the indefinite detention of terrorists at Guantanamo cite the Obama administration’s previous declaration
that at least 60 prisoners are cleared for transfer to other countries. Human rights groups such as Amnesty
International have designated the facility the “gulag of our times.” However, Pompeo said any of the proposed
solutions for scuttling Guantanamo and transferring the prisoners leaves the United States with a difficult
“option set.” About a fifth of the detainees who return to Yemen rejoin terrorist groups, he said. Obama
recently announced the removal of a self-imposed ban on transfers to the country where leaders have shown a
willingness to cooperate against terrorism but al Qaeda affiliates linger. Eliminating terrorist leaders with
drones, a practice Obama has dramatically accelerated, deprives security agencies of the opportunity to gather
intelligence, he said. And there is scant political will to bring the detainees to the United States, he added.
“Your option is to kill them—where you can get no information—or bring them back to the U.S. where you’ll
Mirandize them, and you’ll additionally get no information where you can prevent terrorist threats,” he said.
Pompeo also spoke about the conditions at Guantanamo, stating bluntly, “It’s a detention camp.” But the detainees
have access to a lot of services that are denied in most prisoner of war camps, he argued. “They do have
television stations that they can watch, and if they want to behave in a way consistent with the rules, they can
operate in an area where they can meet and gather together,” he said. “They’ve got exercise facilities, and
their religious rights are being observed rigorously.” Pompeo did offer some rare praise for Obama in what he
viewed as the president’s implicit policy toward Guantanamo. “He’s kept the facility open,” he said. “He’s kept it
secure. For that I applaud him, and I only hope that his rhetoric is just that.”
Keeping Guantanamo open is key to effective intelligence operations
Nemish 2009 (Mark C., A major in the US airforce. “To Close or Not to Close: Guantanamo Bay” April 2009.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539847)
Keeping it Open Many
people throughout the world believe that Guantanamo Bay is succeeding
in its intended purpose. It is keeping captured terrorists suspects from harming anyone
and deterring others from committing acts of terrorism. Of course, others feel it is a
torturous and inhumane prison. There is no question controversy has and will continue to
surround the detention facility. For the past six years, the entire world has debated the value and morality of
detention operations at Guantanamo Bay. On 22 January 2009, after only two days in office, President Obama upheld his campaign
promise and ordered Guantanamo Bay closed. Specifically, he ordered the closure of the facility within one year, prohibited the CIA
from using banned interrogation techniques, and suspended tribunals until a task force reviews and corrects the legal processes.32
In addition, President Obama has tasked his administration to examine the feasibility of moving detainees to military prisons in
Kansas, California, and South Carolina or the civilian “Supermax” prison in Colorado.33 First, it is important to remember that there
are roughly 250 detainees still residing at Guantanamo Bay today. If the base is closed, the U.S. will still have to house these
individuals somewhere, most likely on domestic soil. Since the U.S. cannot simply release these detainees,
logistics become an issue that requires open debate and discussion. Former Vice President
Cheney claimed, “If we didn’t have that facility at Guantanamo to undertake this activity,
we’d have to have it someplace else because they’re a vital source of intelligence
information. It appears President Obama will not look back, but his administration should
consider the legitimate arguments for keeping Guantanamo Bay open. First, it is
important to remember that there are roughly 250 detainees still residing at Guantanamo
Bay today. If the base is closed, the U.S. will still have to house these individuals
somewhere, most likely on domestic soil.
Torturing Terrorists necessary to end the war on terror
Swaine 13 (Jon, the New York Correspondent for the Daily Telegraph “Torturing suspects necessary to fight
terrorism, says Cheney,” Fairfax Media, March 13, 2013, http://www.smh.com.au/world/torturing-suspectsnecessary-to-fight-terrorism-says-cheney-20130312-2fyfs.html#ixzz2ZtKewWJE) SS
Dick Cheney, the former US vice-president, has mounted a strident defence of the torture of terrorist suspects
by American interrogators during the George W. Bush administration. In a documentary on his life and career
to be broadcast this week, Mr Cheney dismissed the suggestion that US leaders should risk the lives of
Americans out of a concern for their own honour. ''Tell me what terrorist attack is it you would have let go
forward because you didn't want to be a mean and nasty fellow,'' he said, when asked if the waterboarding of
al-Qaeda suspects was justified. ''Given a choice between doing what we did or backing off and saying 'we
know you know the next attack against the United States, but we're not going to force you to tell us what it is,
because it might create a bad image for us', that's not a close call for me.'' US handling of terrorist suspects
remains fiercely debated more than 11 years after the September 11 attacks that led Mr Bush to approve the
CIA's ''enhanced interrogation techniques''. Suspects were subjected to waterboarding - in which they were made
to feel they were drowning - as well as enforced nudity, being confined in cramped spaces and slammed against
walls. Controversy over the techniques, which were outlawed by President Barack Obama, was renewed this year
when the film Zero Dark Thirty suggested that the use of torture had helped lead the CIA to Osama bin Laden. The
documentary, to be shown 10 years after the US-led invasion of Iraq that Mr Cheney aggressively championed, is
the most comprehensive political intervention by the 72-year-old since he and Mr Bush left office in 2009. In the
documentary, Mr Cheney said he was unmoved by his many critics. ''If you want to be loved, go be a movie
star,'' he said.
Guantanamo Bay’s interrogation program key to killing bin Laden and important
intelligence
Stimson 11
Charles, Stimson is a leading expert in criminal law, military law, military commissions and detention
policy at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, Detainee Interrogations: Key
to Killing Osama bin Laden, The Heritage Foundation, 05/02/2011,
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/05/02/detainee-interrogations-key-to-killing-osama-bin-laden/
Buried in the flood of information on the extraordinary operation to locate and kill Osama bin Laden is the
critical role of strategic interrogations of detainees, including those at Guantanamo. According to a number
of published reports, Gitmo detainees provided key pieces of information that ultimately lead to the location and
death of Osama bin Laden. Those reports are confirmed, in large part, by the government. A senior official who
briefed the press early this morning explained that “detainees in the post-9/11 period flagged for us individuals
who may have been providing direct support to bin Laden and his deputy, [Ayman al-] Zawahiri, after their
escape from Afghanistan.” He continued: “One courier in particular had our constant attention. Detainees gave
us his nom de guerre, or his nickname, and identified him as both a protégé of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the
mastermind of September 11, and a trusted assistant of Abu Faraj al-Libbi, the former number three of alQaeda who was captured in 2005.” The United States obtained this information four years ago, the official stated.
One more crucial fact: According to the “detainees” (note the plural), this individual was “one of the few al-Qaeda
couriers trusted by bin Laden.” Think about that: This lead was developed during the Bush Administration, most
likely from al-Qaeda associates picked up and transferred to Guantanamo and subject to interrogations that
critics have repeatedly deemed to be pointless in terms of intelligence value. Whether these detainees remain at
Guantanamo is an open question. Even at this early point in the news cycle, it is reasonably clear that detainees at
Guantanamo (and perhaps elsewhere, such as those formerly in CIA custody and now at Guantanamo) who agreed
to long-term lawful strategic interrogation gave the critical nuggets of information that put in motion a series
of events that led to bin Laden’s death. For years, we have heard that strategic interrogation of detainees at
Guantanamo was worthless, that the information is (at best) stale and almost certainly of dubious reliability. The
most strident call such interrogations illegal. Even some senior intelligence officials in the Department of Defense
were often dismissive of the value of intelligence gleaned at Guantanamo. Could there be any clearer proof that
those critics are just plain wrong? Intelligence-gathering and analysis has been the backbone of our many
known (and unknown) counterterrorism successes since 9/11. A key part of that has been the role of real-time
tactical interrogations and long-term strategic interrogation. The information gleaned from those
interrogations is fed into a vast and interconnected intelligence network that has resulted in remarkable
achievements in “connecting the dots,” sometimes over a period of years, to disable plots and kill or capture
terrorists. That intelligence has enabled the U.S., under the leadership of both Presidents Bush and Obama,
to stay on the offensive while remaining vigilant to the very real threats that confront the nation every day.
Yesterday, once again, proves the value of a long-term, lawful terrorist interrogation program.
Deterrence Link
Guantanamo Acts as a deterrent to “wanabe terrorists”
Nemish 2009 (Mark C., A major in the US airforce. “To Close or Not to Close: Guantanamo Bay” April 2009.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539847)
Another popular argument for leaving Guantanamo Bay open is that merely closing the
prison will not guarantee a change in world opinion. Most likely, criticism will follow
Guantanamo Bay to its next home of record. While many claim detainee abuse and poor
living conditions, the fact is that these same people are going to believe these conditions
will exist anywhere. Former Vice President Cheney offered, “My own personal view is that those who are most urgently
advocating that we shut down Guantanamo Bay probably don’t agree with our policies anyway.”40 Senator Lindsey Graham also
stated, “I would like every terrorist wannabe to understand that if you take up arms against us or coalition members, you do so at
your own peril, because a couple of things await you, death or injury on the battlefield, or detention and accountability.” These are
solid perspectives surrounding the need to keep the prison open. People that hated it before will hate it as long
as Guantanamo Bay or its successor exists. Moreover, by virtue of the isolated nature of
Guantanamo Bay, it serves as a warning sign for those considering terrorist action against
us. Housing the detainees in the U.S. may seem like a moral victory to human rights
activists, but it will place suspected terrorists on the soil of the very country they intend to
harm. The image of the U.S. will not change overnight with the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
Release Link
GITMO closure causes a dozens of high-level terrorists to get released to Yemen,
independently causing Yemen instability
Daskal 13(Jennifer, an American lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on
issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration. She is also currently a political hire at the Department of Justice,
which is seeking to prosecute terror suspects through the criminal justice system instead of through military
tribunals. Don’t Close Guantanamo, The New York Times, January 10th, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/dont-close-guantanamo.html?_r=0)
While I have been slow to come to this realization, the signs have been evident for some time. Three years ago,
Barack Obama’s administration conducted a comprehensive review of the Guantánamo detainees and concluded
that about four dozen prisoners couldn’t be prosecuted, but were too dangerous to be transferred or released.
They are still being held under rules of war that allow detention without charge for the duration of hostilities.
Others happened to hail from Yemen. Although many of them were cleared for transfer, the transfers were
put on indefinite hold because of instability in Yemen, the fear that some might join Al Qaeda forces, and
Yemen’s inability to put adequate security measures in place. While the specific numbers have most likely
shifted over time, the basic categories persist. These are men whom the current administration will not transfer,
release or prosecute, so long as the legal authority to detain, pursuant to the law of war, endures.
Yemen is the key linchpin of global Al Qaeda– they’re key to funding, recruiting, training,
deployment, and are the refuge of last resort
Scheuer ‘8 [Michael Scheuer is a former CIA intelligence officer, American blogger, historian, foreign policy critic, and political analyst.
He is currently an adjunct professor at Georgetown University's Center for Peace and Security Studies, “Yemen’s Role in al-Qaeda’s Strategy”,
Terrorism Focus Volume: 5 Issue: 5, February 7, 2008,
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=4708&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=246&no_cache=1]
Osama bin Laden has always had a very soft spot in his heart for Yemen, saying that it is “one of the best Arab and Muslim countries in terms of
its adherence to tradition and the faith … [its] topography is mountainous, and its people are tribal and armed, and allow one to breathe clean air
unblemished by humiliation.” Yemen is, of course, also the site of his family’s origin and he has often praised the Kindah tribe of which his
family is part. The bin Ladens hail from the village of al-Rubat in the Hadramaut region, and Osama took his fourth wife from there. Bin Laden
also has referred often to the religious importance of Yemen, noting the Prophet Muhammad’s high regard for Yemen because of its quick
adoption of Islam after the faith’s founding and because he believed that from Yemen “would come 12,000 [fighters] who would support God
and His Prophet, and they are among the best of us” (al-Islah, September 2, 1996). Abundant Manpower But affection is always overruled by the
requirements of war-fighting in bin Laden’s mentality and Yemen has long figured prominently in the conduct of the
defensive jihad in terms of manpower and geographic importance . Yemenis, for example, have had significant
representation in al-Qaeda since its founding: Tariq al-Fahdli, from southern Yemen, fought alongside bin Laden against the Soviets
and was on Yemeni President Salih’s senior council; Nasir Ahmad Nasir al-Bahri (Abu Jandal), who was the longtime chief of his bodyguard
unit, is also from Yemen (al-Quds al-Arabi, August 3, 2004). After the Soviet withdrawal from Afghanistan, moreover, bin Laden and several of
his colleagues sent guns, money and Arab veterans of Afghanistan into Yemen to fight alongside the Salih-led insurgents who eventually
defeated the communist regime of southern Yemen to reunify the country in 1990 (al-Qatan al-Arabi, December 27, 1996). Al-Qaeda’s first antiU.S. attack—against U.S. troops on the way to Somalia—was conducted in Aden, Yemen, in December 1992. More recently, 80 percent of those
involved in the October 2000 attack on the USS Cole were Saudis of Yemeni origin. The members of the al-Qaeda cell that the FBI dismantled in
Lackawanna, New York in 2002 were all Yemenis. Furthermore, a significant number of the non-Iraqi mujahideen fighting U.S. forces in Iraq are
Yemenis. Indeed, in late 2007 the leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamzah al-Muhajir, called specifically on the Yemeni Islamists to provide
more fighters to support the Iraqi mujahideen. On November 29, 2007, al-Qaeda’s chief in Yemen, Nasir al-Wihayshi (aka Abu Basir), publicly
answered that he would immediately send more fighters. “Oh Abu Hamzah, here we come, oh, Iraq, here we come,” Abu Basir pledged (Message
from the Amir of al-Qaeda in Yemen to Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, November 29, 2007). Lasting Geographic Importance Beyond “the extended
manpower fighting for God in happy Yemen,” bin Laden and al-Qaeda have always valued what they refer to as “the strategic
depth” that Yemen affords (al-Islah, September 2, 1996; al-Quds al-Arabi, March 9, 1994). While bin Laden and his organization were
based in Sudan from 1991 to 1996, for example, they established a sort of “naval bridge” that permitted the flow of guns and fighters between
Yemen and Port Sudan in support of Hasan al-Turabi’s Islamist regime in Khartoum. In the other direction, bin Laden sent al-Qaeda operatives
from Port Sudan to Yemen and from there infiltrated them into Saudi Arabia across the imperfectly guarded Saudi-Yemeni border as well as into
Oman. In Yemen, bin Laden also cultivated ties with President Salih and prominent Islamist shaykhs—including Shaykh Abdul Majid al-Zindani,
head of the Yemen Reform Party—and by doing so facilitated the growth of substantial al-Qaeda infrastructure across the country. Al-Qaeda’s
presence in Yemen also brought it into closer contact with the Egyptian Islamist groups based there: the Gama’a al-Islamiyah and Ayman alZawahiri’s Egyptian Islamic Jihad, the latter of which later united with al-Qaeda. Finally, al-Qaeda has found that some of its Yemeni
members are of great assistance in inserting al-Qaeda operatives into the states of East Africa, the Indian
Ocean and the South Pacific, because of the Yemeni diaspora that was established centuries ago in those regions
by Yemeni sailors and commercial traders. Operational Key and Base of Last Resort For al-Qaeda, Yemen provides a
pivotal, central base that links its theaters of operation in Afghanistan, Iraq, East Africa and the Far East; it also
provides a base for training Yemeni fighters and for the rest and refit of fighters from multiple Islamist groups
after their tours in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. Today, it appears to be an especially important safe haven for
Somali Islamist fighters and the leaders of the Union of Islamic Courts who fled their country after the late-2006 invasion of Ethiopian forces.
Some of these Somali fighters—after having regrouped and rearmed—have returned to Mogadishu from Yemen and are contributing to the
growth of the Islamist insurgency there (Christian Science Monitor, February 12, 2007). Al-Qaeda’s organization in Yemen seems to have
stabilized after the period of turmoil and governmental suppression that followed the November 2002 death of its leader Abu Ali Harithi. Under
the above-mentioned Abu Basir—who escaped from a Yemeni prison in early 2006—al-Qaeda in Yemen clearly has found its legs and is
becoming more active (Yemen Times, July 5, 2007). In late June 2007, for example, Abu Basir issued a warning that al-Qaeda would attack in
Yemen if its members were not released from prison; on July 4, 2007, al-Qaeda attacked, using a suicide car bomb to kill seven Spanish tourists
at an ancient pagan temple east of San’a (al-Jazeera, July 3, 2007). Then, on January 13, the Yemen wing again warned that it would attack if the
Salih regime did not release imprisoned al-Qaeda members; on January 19 al-Qaeda killed two Belgian tourists and their drivers in the
Hadramaut area (Reuters, January 13; Yemen Times, January 26). Abu Basir’s organization is thus showing some of the same sophistication
demonstrated by al-Qaeda groups elsewhere: targeting the tourism industry that earns the country foreign exchange; establishing credibility by
making threats and then making good on them; and improving intra-Yemen and international communications by using the internet. In regard to
the latter, al-Qaeda in Yemen published the first issue of its internet journal Sada al-Malahim (The Echo of Battles) on January 13
(memriwmp.org, January 16). Attacks by al-Qaeda in Yemen are likely to continue at a level that does not lead to an all-out confrontation with
Salih’s regime. In all likelihood, al-Qaeda intends to cause just enough sporadic damage to persuade Salih’s regime that it is best to curtail its
efforts to destroy al-Qaeda and to allow the group to operate relatively freely in and from Yemen as long as no major attacks are staged in the
country. Indeed, such a modus vivendi may be in the works as San’a officials have experimented with putting imprisoned Islamists through a
reeducation process that shows them the error of their ways and then releases them on the promise of good behavior (al-Sharq al-Awsat, May 21,
2006). This almost certainly equates to a license for the militants to do what they want, where they want, as long as it is not in Yemen. Possibly
signaling a growing rapprochement between Salih and the militants, al-Qaeda in Yemen spokesman Ahmad Mansur recently claimed that the
government had solicited al-Qaeda’s support in fighting Shiite rebels in the north in return for “easing the persecution of our members” (alWasat, January 31). Finally, Yemen has long been regarded by Western and Muslim commentators as a possible refuge-of-lastresort if bin Laden ever has to flee South Asia—bin Laden also has stated such a possibility—and for this reason al-Qaeda must seek
to maintain a viable presence in the country. Al-Qaeda in Yemen is particularly strong in the governorates of Marib and
Hadramaut—the attacks described above and others have occurred there—and both share a remote, mountainous topography that is much like
that of Afghanistan. The two provinces also are inhabited by a welter of deeply conservative Islamic tribes—Marib alone has four powerful tribes
with over 70 clans. As in Afghanistan, the mores of these Yemeni tribes cause their members to “think they must do their duty to protect those
who are in need for protection whatever they have done. This feeling becomes even stronger if those who need protection are religious people,
because the tribesmen here are greatly affected by religious discourse”
Al-Qaeda Strong Now
Al-Qaeda is stronger than ever as local affiliates increase its global appeal and attacks
Jones 2012 (Seth, political scientist and writer for Foreign Policy Magazine, former adjunct professor at
the Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Think Again: Al Qaeda, Foreign Policy,
May/June 2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/think_again_al_qaeda?page=0,1)
These declarations of victory, however, underestimate al Qaeda's continuing capacity for destruction. Far from
being dead and buried, the terrorist organization is now riding a resurgent tide as its affiliates engage in an
increasingly violent campaign of attacks across the Middle East and North Africa. And for all the admiration
inspired by brave protesters in the streets from Damascus to Sanaa, the growing instability triggered by the Arab
Spring has provided al Qaeda with fertile ground to expand its influence across the region. The New al Qaeda
Franchises Al Qaeda's bloody fingerprints are increasingly evident in the Middle East. In Iraq, where the
United States has withdrawn its military forces, al Qaeda operatives staged a brazen wave of bombings in
January, killing at least 132 Shiite pilgrims and wounding hundreds more. The following week in Yemen,
fighters from al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula seized the town of Radda, while expanding al Qaeda's
control in several southern provinces. "Al Qaeda has raised its flag over the citadel," a resident told Reuters.
Beyond these anecdotes, several indicators suggest that al Qaeda is growing stronger. First, the size of al
Qaeda's global network has dramatically expanded since the 9/11 attacks. Al Qaeda in Iraq, al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and Somalia's al-Shabab have formally joined al Qaeda, and
their leaders have all sworn bayat -- an oath of loyalty -- to bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri. These al
Qaeda affiliates are increasingly capable of holding territory. In Yemen, for example, al Qaeda in the Arabian
Peninsula has exploited a government leadership crisis and multiple insurgencies to cement control in several
provinces along the Gulf of Aden. Al Qaeda's affiliates in Somalia and Iraq also appear to be maintaining a
foothold where there are weak governments, with al-Shabab in Kismayo and southern parts of Somalia, and al
Qaeda in Iraq in Baghdad, Diyala, and Salah ad Din provinces, among others. The number of attacks by al Qaeda
and its affiliates is also on the rise, even since bin Laden's death. Al Qaeda in Iraq, for instance, has conducted
more than 200 attacks and killed more than a thousand Iraqis since the bin Laden raid, a jump from the previous
year. And despite the group's violent legacy, popular support for al Qaeda remains fairly high in countries such
as Nigeria and Egypt, though it has steadily declined in others. If this is what the brink of defeat looks like, I'd hate
to see success. Wishful thinking. In recent years, al Qaeda leaders have consciously developed a strategy to
expand their presence in North Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Rather than weakening the
organization, this mergers-and-acquisitions strategy has been fairly successful in allowing al Qaeda to expand
its global presence.
Al Qaeda plotting attacks-Pushing propaganda for it on popular Jihadist forum
Gertz 13 (Bill, a national security columnist for The Washington Times and senior editor at The Washington Free
Beacon (www.freebeacon.com). He has been with The Times since 1985. He is the author of six books, four of them
national best-sellers. His latest book, "The Failure Factory," on government bureaucracy and national security, was
published in September 2008. Mr. Gertz also writes a weekly column called Inside the Ring, a weekly column that
chronicles the U.S. national security bureaucracy. Mr. Gertz has been a guest lecturer at the FBI National Academy
in Quantico, Va.; the Central Intelligence Agency in Virginia; the National Defense University at Fort McNair in
Washington; and the Brookings Institution in Washington. He has participated in the National Security Studies
Program at the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies and Syracuse University
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs. He studied English literature at Washington College in
Chestertown, Md., and journalism at George Washington University. , “Inside the Ring: New al Qaeda threat,” The
Washington Times, LLC, January 30, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jan/30/inside-the-ringnew-al-qaeda-threat/#ixzz2aFrU8cuT)
A jihadist website posted a new threat by al Qaeda this week that promises to conduct “shocking” attacks on
the United States and the West. The posting appeared on the Ansar al Mujahidin network Sunday and
carried the headline, “Map of al Qaeda and its future strikes.” The message, in Arabic, asks: “Where will the
next strike by al Qaeda be?” A translation was obtained by Inside the Ring. “The answer for it, in short: The
coming strikes by al Qaeda, with God’s Might, will be in the heart of the land of nonbelief, America, and in
France, Denmark, other countries in Europe, in the countries that helped and are helping France, and in
other places that shall be named by al Qaeda at other times,” the threat states. The attacks will be “strong,
serious, alarming, earth-shattering, shocking and terrifying.” Under a section of the post on the method of the
attacks, the unidentified writer said the strikes would be “group and lone-wolf operations, in addition to the
use of booby-trapped vehicles.” “All operations will be recorded and published in due time,” the message said.
“Let France be prepared, and let the helpers of France be prepared, for it is going to be a long war of
attrition.” The reference to France appears linked to the group’s plans for retaliation against the French-led
military strikes in northern Mali in operations to oust al Qaeda terrorists from the North African country.
The Ansar al-Mujahidin network is a well-known jihadist forum that in the past has published reliably
accurate propaganda messages from al Qaeda and its affiliates. U.S. counterterrorism actions over the past 10
years have prevented al Qaeda from conducting major attacks. However, U.S. officials warn that the group
continues to be dangerous, despite the killing of its top leaders in drone strikes and special operations.
Al-Qaeda attack still a threat to the U.S, drone strikes fail
Jones 2012
Seth, political scientist and writer for Foreign Policy Magazine, former adjunct professor at the Walsh
School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Think Again: Al Qaeda, Foreign Policy, May/June
2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/think_again_al_qaeda?page=0,1
"Al Qaeda Is Too Weak to Strike in the United States."
Dead wrong. It only takes one attack to be successful. Also, lest we forget, there have been some close calls in
recent years: In June 2009, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad attacked a military recruiting center in Little
Rock, Arkansas, fatally gunning down one soldier and wounding another. He had listened to the sermons of
Anwar al-Awlaki, the late Yemeni-American al Qaeda operative, and had spent time in Yemen. Najibullah Zazi,
Nidal Malik Hasan, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, Faisal Shahzad, and the 2006 transatlantic plotters based in
Britain also planned or carried out al Qaeda-inspired terrorist attacks on American soil or on U.S.-bound
airplanes -- some with deadly results. What if more of these attempts had succeeded? But that's not all. Dozens
of people have been arrested and prosecuted in U.S. courts in recent years for their ties to al Qaeda and its
affiliates. They include Zachary Adam Chesser, who was arrested by the FBI in July 2010 for his ties to alShabab, and Jamshid Muhtorov, an Uzbek refugee arrested in Chicago this January for allegedly providing
material support to the Islamic Jihad Union, an al Qaeda ally. These examples -- and there are many more -should dampen any exuberance about the group's supposed demise.
Claims of Al-Qaeda’s demise is rooted in applause lines instead of analysis
Jones 2012
Seth, political scientist and writer for Foreign Policy Magazine, former adjunct professor at the Walsh
School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University, Think Again: Al Qaeda, Foreign Policy, May/June
2012, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/think_again_al_qaeda?page=0,1
Since Sept. 11, 2001, the West has repeatedly declared al Qaeda all but dead and buried -- only to see it rise
again. This time, the weakness of governments across the Arab world and South Asia, the durability of some
of al Qaeda's main allies, and the decreasing U.S. presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other
countries could contribute to al Qaeda's post-bin Laden survival. Drones and special operations forces may
kill some al Qaeda leaders, but they will not resolve the fundamental problems that have turned the region into a
breeding ground for terrorism and insurgency. Predictions of al Qaeda's imminent demise are rooted more in
wishful thinking and politicians' desire for applause lines than in rigorous analysis. Al Qaeda's broader
network isn't even down -- don't think it's about to be knocked out.
Bioterror Likely
Bioterrorism is a vastly growing and undetectable threat, past negotiations fail
Reuters 2011
Quotes from former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, Terror threat from biological weapons growing
warns Hillary Clinton, Reuters, http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/12/07/biological-weapons-threatgrowing-clinton-says/
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said countries must strengthen their ability to detect and respond to suspicious
outbreaks of infectious disease that could be caused by pathogens falling into the wrong hands. “Unfortunately the
ability of terrorists and other non-state actors to develop and use these weapons is growing. Therefore this must
be a renewed focus of our efforts,” she said in a speech in Geneva. “Because there are warning signs and they are
too serious to ignore.” She said Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula had urged “brothers with degrees in
microbiology or chemistry … to develop a weapon of mass destruction.” A crude but effective terrorist
weapon can be made by using a small sample of widely available pathogens, inexpensive equipment and
“college-level chemistry and biology,” she added. She was addressing a global conference held every five years to
review the Biological Weapons Convention banning biological and toxin weapons, which has been ratified by 165
states. Iran’s ambassador Seyed Mohammad Reza Sajjadi, whose country has ratified the 1975 pact, said the
meeting should call on all non-parties, and in particular Israel, to join without delay. Clinton said the United States
saw no need to negotiate a verification regime for the pact as it is extremely difficult to detect biological material
and research can serve dual purposes, both military and civilian. Global negotiations 10 years ago failed to agree
on a verification mechanism.
Brink of bioterror is now and probability is increasing exponentially, anyone can unleash
Bio-Terrorism
Chatterjee 12
U.S Correspondent for the Economic Times, With research in biology taking rapid leaps, Bioterror could
be the next big threat, The Economic Times, 07/30/2012,
http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-07-30/news/32942541_1_synthetic-biology-bioterrormobile-apps
Real bioterror attacks could mean couriering toxic microorganisms in innocent little envelopes containing
elements causing fatal diseases like respiratory anthrax, tularemia and pneumonic plague. If the US Commission
on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) Proliferation and Terrorism is to be believed, by
end of 2013, a WMD attack is likely and the kind of weapons used will unlikely be nuclear, but biological. So
anthrax spores could, for instance, be produced in test tubes and enhanced to attack people of say, a specific race or
geographical region. The fear is neither unfounded nor out of a scifi film. In the wake of 9/11, anonymous
anthrax-laced letters were sent to several media outlets and congressional offices causing paranoia and weakening
the postal service. According to estimates, five people were killed, 17 were left ill and over 10,000 people had taken
antibiotics to prevent infection. And Syria has just threatened to unleash biological WMDs if it faces a foreign
attack. The possibility of bioterror attacks have multiplied with research in biology taking rapid leaps with
genome sequencing, synthetic biology, the creation of Synthia (the first synthetic cell built from scratch), and
so on. Once these technologies reach the flexibility of today's mobile apps, they can be misused like any other.
Viruses used for diagnosis can also weaponise diseases. Yeast could be maneuvered to provide all vitamin
supplement intake, not through pills, but through a customised chocolate cake. The same yeast could be injected
with the DNA code of plants like coca, opium poppy and even marijuana, thereby leading to new kinds of narcotic
biocrime. "Research in biology is growing almost thrice as fast as Moore's Law. The biological revolution will be
upon us faster than anything that we have seen so far...faster than mobile or computing revolutions!" says
Marc Goodman, who advises the Interpol, the United Nations, NATO and the US government on technology crimes
and teaches at Singularity University -- an university in Silicon Valley focused on exponentially growing
technologies. "Unfortunately, governments have very little idea of the kind of biological threats. And
meanwhile, the bad guys are getting very good at leveraging new technologies in real time." But who are these
bad guys? This question is becoming relevant and difficult to answer due to two factors: First, the rise of do-ityourself biology groups emulating a computing hacking culture that could include anybody from high school
students to garage hobbyists.
Specific Scenario For Attack
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Being help in GITMO
The New York Times (The New York Times, “Khalid Shaikh Mohammed,” The New York Times, July 27, 2013,
http://projects.nytimes.com/guantanamo/detainees/10024-khalid-shaikh-mohammed) SS
Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is a citizen of Pakistan. He is one of 16 high-value detainees. As of January 2010,
the Guantánamo Review Task Force had recommended him for prosecution. As of July 26, 2013, he has been
held at Guantánamo for six years 10 months. He has been charged with war crimes.
And Mohammad could attack if he weren’t being held in GITMO
Watt 11 (Holly, the Telegraph's Whitehall Editor. She joined the Telegraph in April 2009 after four years at the
Sunday Times. In 2008, she was awarded the Laurence Stern fellowship and spent the summer working at the
Washington Post. She was a key member of the Telegraph’s expenses team and has been nominated for Scoop of the
Year four times - most recently in 2012. She was shortlisted for Young Journalist of the Year at the 2010 British
Press Awards and News Reporter of the Year and Political Journalist of the Year in 2011, “Wikileaks: Al-Qaeda
plotted chemical and nuclear attack on the West,” Telegraph Media Group Limited 2013, April 26, 2011,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472810/Wikileaks-Al-Qaeda-plotted-chemical-andnuclear-attack-on-the-West.html) SS
One of the terrorist group’s most senior figures warned that al-Qaeda had obtained and hidden a nuclear
bomb in Europe that would be detonated if Osama bin Laden was killed or captured.
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the al-Qaeda mastermind currently facing trial in America over the 9/11
atrocities, was involved in a range of plans including attacks on US nuclear plants and a “nuclear hellstorm”
plot in America.
Terrorism Moral
Fighting terrorism with a policy focus is entirely justified – their claims to the contrary are
without merit
Horgan and Boyle ‘8 [John Horgan and Michael J. Boyle**” (1 International Center for the Study of Terrorism, Department of
Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; "School of International Relations, University of St Andrews, S!
Andrews, UK), Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol. 1, No. l, April 2008, “A case against ‘Critical Terrorism Studies’”]
One of the tensions within CTS concems the issue of ‘policy relevance’. At the most basic level, there are some sweeping generalizations made
by CTS scholars, often with little evidence. For example, Jackson (2007c) describes ‘the core terrorism scholars’ (without explicitly saying who
he is referring to) as ‘intimately connected — institutionally, financially, politically, and ideologically - with a state hegemonic project’ (p. 245).
Without giving any details of who these ‘core’ scholars are, where they are, what they do, and exactly who funds them, his arguments are
tantamount to conjecture at best. We do not deny that govemments fund terrorism research and terrorism researchers, and that this
can influence the direction (and even the findings) of the research. But we are suspicious of over-generalizations of this count
on two grounds: (l) accepting govemment funding or infomiation does not necessarily obviate one’s independent scholarly
judgment in a particular project; and (2) having policy relevance is not always a sin. On the first point, we are in agreement with
some CTS scholars. Gunning provides a sensitive analysis of this problem, and calls on CTS advocates to come to terms with how they can
engage policy-makers without losing their critical distance. He recognizes that CTS can (and should) aim to be policy-relevant, but perhaps to a
different audience, including non-govemmental organizations (NGOs), civil society than just governments and security services. ln other words,
CTS aims to whisper into the ear of the prince. but it is just a different prince. Gurming (2007a) also argues that research should be
assessed on its own merits, for ‘just because a piece of research comes from RAND does not invalidate it; conversely, a “critical” study is
not inherently good’ (p. 240). We agree entirely with this. Not all sponsored or contract research is made to ‘toe a party line’, and much of the
work coming out of official government agencies or affiliated government agencies has little agenda and can be analytically useful. The task of
the scholar is to retain one’s sense of critical judgment and integrity, and we believe that there is no prima facie reason to assume that this cannot
be done in sponsored research projects. What matters here are the details of the research — what is the purpose of the work, how will it
be done, how might the work be used in policy — and for these questions the scholar must be self-critical and insistent on their intellectual
autonomy. The scholar must also be mindful of the responsibility they bear for shaping a govemment’s response to the problem of terrorism.
Nothing — not the source of the funding, purpose of the research or prior empirical or theoretical commitment — obviates the need of the scholar
to consider his or her own conscience carefully when engaging in work with any extemal actor. But simply engaging with governments
on discrete projects does not make one an ‘embedded expert’ nor does it imply sanction to their actions. But we also believe that the
study of political violence lends itself to policy relevance and that those who seek to produce research that might help policy-makers reduce the
rates of terrorist attack are committing no sin, provided that they retain their independent judgment and report their findings candidly and
honestly. In the case of terrorism, we would go further to argue that being policy relevant is in some instances an entirely
justifiable moral choice . For example, neither of us has any problem producing research with a morally defensible but policy relevant
goal (for example, helping the British govemment to prevent suicide bombers from attacking the London Underground) and we do not believe
that engaging in such work tarnishes one’s stature as an independent scholar. Implicit in the CTS literature is a deep suspicion about the state and
those who engage with it. Such a suspicion may blind some CTS scholars to good work done by those associated with the state. But to assume
that being ‘embedded’ in an institution linked to the ‘establishment’ consists of being captured by a state hegemonic project is too simple. We do
not believe that scholars studying terrorism must all be policy-relevant. but equally we do not believe that being policy relevant should always be
interpreted as writing a blank cheque for govermnents or as necessarily implicating the scholar in the behaviour of that government on issues
unrelated to one’s work. Working for the US government, for instance, does not imply that the scholar sanctions or approves of the abuses at Abu
Ghraib prison. The assumption that those who do not practice CTS are all ‘embedded’ with the ‘establislunent’ and that
this somehow gives the green light for states to engage in illegal activity is in our view unwarranted, to say the very
least. The limits of this moral responsibility are overlooked in current CTS work; indeed, if anything there is an attempt to inflate the policy
relevance that terrorism scholars have. Jackson (20070) alleges that ‘the direction of domestic counter-terrorism policies’ are ‘to a large degree
based on orthodox terrorism studies research’ (p. 225). Yet he provides no examples, let alone evidence for this claim. Jackson further alleges
‘terrorism studies actually provides an authoritative judgment about who may legitimately be killed, tortured, rendered or incarcerated by the
state in the name of counter-terrorism’ (p. 249). Again, there is a tension here: Jackson conjures an image of terrorism studies which no matter its
conceptual and empirical flaws is somehow able to influence govemments to the point of constructing who is and is not a legitimate target. This
implies that not only is there a secret cabal of terrorism researchers quietly pulling the strings of government, but also that those engaged in
terrorism research sanction abuse of human rights and statedirected violence. This implies a measure of bad faith on the part of some terrorism
researchers, and we believe that CTS advocates should offer a more nuanced portrayal of those engaged in policy relevant search than this
assessment allows.
Terrorism is evil. Our inability to aggressively fight is morally bankrupt and causes global
violence
Hannity 5 – co-host of Hannity & Colmes (Sean, Deliver Us From
Evil, http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0060582510-excerpt.asp)
Three years ago, evil
surfaced in the Western world in a way it had not in six decades , since the day of infamy at Pearl Harbor.
Americans were forced to confront pure human wickedness in a way we had not in generations . And in that moment we
rose as one nation to the challenge -- led, fortunately, by a leader who had the clarity of vision to recognize that evil for what it was, and to rally
America and the world against it. Even many of the most committed liberals seemed to have their compasses reoriented in the face of that
unmistakable act of war and crime against humanity. But nearly three years have passed. And in the intervening time our wounds have healed,
our senses and memories dulled. The nation rallied behind its leader long enough to expel the state sponsors of evil in Afghanistan. Yet by the
time the confrontation with Iraq presented itself, our courage and moral certainty seemed to fade in the face of partisan bickering and posturing.
We toppled a murderous dictator in Iraq -- and yet now the political left and the Democratic Party are trying to use
the demanding aftermath of the war to exploit our national cause for their own political advantage. How could we
allow ourselves to forget so soon? I decided to write this book because I believe it is our responsibility to recognize and
confront evil in the world -- and because I'm convinced that if we fail in that mission it will lead us to disaster. Evil exists.
It is real, and it means to harm us. I believe this strongly, and not just because of my Catholic faith, although that's the root of it. When
you work in the news business, you deal with the ugly side of life. Every day across your desk comes story after story about man's inhumanity to
man, from mass murderers to child molesters to mothers who drown their children to husbands who murder their pregnant wives. These stories
push the limits of our ability to imagine man's potential for depravity, and yet they are horrifically true. Still, isolated events like these pale beside
the pure evil of September 11. How could anyone witness the horrors of that day, or the mass graves discovered in Iraq
after the fall of Saddam Hussein, and dismiss the idea of evil? And yet many people do -- most of them political
liberals. Even when they can bring themselves to acknowledge the brutality of a venal tyrant such as Saddam
Hussein, they qualify it. "We are not deny ng that Saddam is a repressive dictator ," they say, "but we don't believe we should
have attacked Iraq without giving him more time to comply with the U.N. resolutions." For the appeasement-minded liberals of our country,
there's always a "but." It's difficult for liberals to see such moral questions clearly, because most of them are moral relativists. They reject
absolute standards of right and wrong. In their worldview, man is perfectible, human nature is on a linear path toward enlightenment, and the
concept of sin is primitively biblical. In their view, society's unfairness compels people to break the law. To them people like Saddam and
Osama bin Laden are not morally depraved murderers, but men driven to their bad acts by the injustices of Western
society. The emphasis is always on giving bad actors -- domestic and foreign -- the benefit of the doubt, never on
personal accountability. After all, if we can blame external circumstances or internal imbalance, then we can avoid the messy business of
calling the evildoers to account. This kind of thinking s all too familiar from our courtrooms at home. The justice system today is crawling with
"experts" eager to exonerate the most heinous criminals on the grounds that they're "genetically predisposed" to murder, rape, take drugs, or
otherwise endanger the welfare of others; the media fills its airwaves with liberal advocates eager to sympathize with murderers on death row,
instead of the families of the innocent victims. The trouble with tolerating evil, of course, is that while we're averting our
eyes, the evil itself only grows and festers around the world. This has been true throughout history. Neville Chamberlain assured a
wary England that an appeasement pact with Adolf Hitler would lead to "peace n our time." Cold War liberal elitists ignored or downplayed the
atrocities of communism, from the gulag of "Uncle Joe" Stalin to the killing fields of Cambodia. Bill Clinton stood idly by while Islamic
terrorists attacked American targets throughout the 1990s, in a long prelude that should have alerted us to their burgeoning war on America. The
primary evil we face today is terrorism. But we will never triumph over the terrorists until we realize that groups
like al Qaeda are not working alone. Wthout the deep pockets of terrorist-friendly dictatorships like Saddam
Hussein's Iraq to support them, the loose networks of Islamic terrorism would pose only a fraction of the danger to
civilization they currently do. And those dictatorships, we must realize, are the same brutal regimes that have
oppressed their own people for generations. As President Bush has declared, we can no longer wait around for terrorists to attack us.
We must take the war to them, rooting them out of their swamps and destroying the despotic regimes that furnish their lifeblood.
Fearing terrorism is the only rational response
Krauthammer 4 (Charles, 10/18, The Case for Fearmongering, http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,995420,00.html ,
AG)
Such piety is always ridiculous but never more ridiculous than today. Never in American history has fear been a more appropriate
feeling. Never has addressing that fear been a more relevant issue in a political campaign. Shortly after Hiroshima, wrote physicist Richard
Feynman in his memoirs, "I would go along and I would see people building a bridge ... and I thought, they're crazy, they just don't understand,
they don't understand. Why are they making new things? It's so useless." Useless because doomed. Futile because humanity had no future. That's
what happens to a man who worked on the Manhattan Project and saw with his own eyes at Alamogordo intimations of the apocalypse. Feynman
had firsthand knowledge of what man had wrought--and a first-class mind deeply skeptical of the ability of his own primitive species not to be
undone by its own cleverness. Feynman was not alone. The late 1940s and '50s were so pervaded by a general fear of nuclear annihilation that the
era was known as the Age of Anxiety. That anxiety dissipated over the decades as we convinced ourselves that deterrence
(the threat of mutual annihilation) would assure our safety. Sept. 11 ripped away that illusion. Deterrence depends
on rationality. But the new enemy is the embodiment of irrationality: nihilists with a cult of death, yearning for the
apocalypse--armed, ready and appallingly able. The primordial fear that haunted us through the first days and weeks
after 9/11 has dissipated. Not because the threat has disappeared but for the simple reason that in our ordinary lives
we simply cannot sustain that level of anxiety. The threat is as real as it was on Sept. 12. It only feels distant because
it is psychologically impossible to constantly face the truth and yet carry on day to day. But as it is the first duty of
government to provide for the common defense, it is the first duty of any post-9/11 government to face that truth
every day--and to raise it to national consciousness at least once every four years, when the nation chooses its leaders. Fearmongering? Yes.
And very salutary. When you live in an age of terrorism with increasingly available weapons of mass destruction, it is
the absence of fear that is utterly irrational.
Empiricism Good
Empiricism is good and true when it comes to terrorism
Horgan and Boyle ‘8 [John Horgan and Michael J. Boyle**” (1 International Center for the Study of Terrorism, Department of
Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA; "School of International Relations, University of St Andrews, S!
Andrews, UK), Critical Studies on Terrorism, Vol. 1, No. l, April 2008, “A case against ‘Critical Terrorism Studies’”]
Furthermore, we also realize the inherent challenge in attempting to be a disinterested observer of social phenomena
(problems with this, as shall be shown, lie at the heart of some of the raison d 'étre for CTS) particularly in a field as contested as
terrorism studies. Terrorism is a widely disputed social and political phenomenon and the very act of data
collection — which includes, for example, discerning what events count and do not count as terrorism — cannot be considered
entirely value free. The terrorism scholar can try to be as independently minded as possible and test for the robustness of findings based on
different definition of the data, but the basic problem — that terrorism studies is ineluctably political — remains. In our
view, this does not lead to an abandonment of empirical approaches to social and political inquiry. Instead, we believe
that the empirical approach is a powerful and useful way to study terrorism, and that a key contribution of CTS
can be to make empirical scholarship more self-aware and reflective in its practice.2 We do not believe that concepts
without tight analytic boundaries - for example, the ‘state’ or ‘power’ — cannot be used in research, though they must be used
with some care and self-awareness. As a matter of policy, neither of us believes that any form of intellectual enterprise should be
discarded if it happens to run contrary to our interests or to challenge what we do. We welcome the contribution of CTS only if it helps to
improve the analytic rigor of terrorism or open new avenues of research. We believe that — as Mao put it — that in academia it is always a good
idea to let ‘a hundred flowers bloom; let a hundred schools of thought contend’. We say this as a prelude to qualifying the criticisms below,
levelled at CTS (or at least its current incamation) as a way of stimulating debate, not silencing it.
DA Turns Case
Only Winning the War on Terror solves the legal justification for the War on Terror.
Daskal 13(Jennifer, an American lawyer who serves as senior counsel for Human Rights Watch, and focuses on
issues of terrorism, criminal law and immigration. She is also currently a political hire at the Department of Justice,
which is seeking to prosecute terror suspects through the criminal justice system instead of through military
tribunals. Don’t Close Guantanamo, The New York Times, January 10th, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/opinion/dont-close-guantanamo.html?_r=0)
The political reality is that closure of Guantánamo is unlikely to happen anytime soon, and if it did, it would
do more harm than good . We should instead focus on finding places to transfer those cleared to leave the facility
and, more important, on defining the end to the war. In a recent speech, Jeh Johnson, then the Department of
Defense general counsel, discussed a future “tipping point” at which Al Qaeda would be so decimated that the
armed conflict would be deemed over. Statements from high level officials suggest that this point may be near.
And as the United States pulls out of Afghanistan, there is an increasingly strong argument that the war against Al
Qaeda is coming to a close. With the end of the conflict, the legal justification for the detentions will finally
disappear. At that point, the remaining men in Guantánamo can no longer be held without charge, at least
not without running afoul of basic constitutional and international law prohibitions. Only then is there a
realistic hope for meaningful closure, not by recreating a prison in the United States but through the arduous
process of transferring, releasing or prosecuting the detainees left there.
GITMO can’t close until the war on terror ends-too big of a threat to US
Crowley 13 (Michael, Michael Crowley is a 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, “Why Gitmo Will
Never Close,” Time Inc, May 30, 2013, http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/30/why-gitmo-will-never-close/3/) SS
But Obama will be hard-pressed to live up to his grand rhetoric. Opposition still runs high to the idea of releasing or bringing into
U.S. prisons dozens of men widely considered dangerous terrorists even if many are not. Asked to gauge the probability
that Obama can close Guantánamo before he leaves office, David Remes, a lawyer who represents 18 Guantánamo inmates replies, “Zero.” And even if Obama can
shut down the site known colloquially as Gitmo, he hasn’t promised to end the practice of long-term incarceration without trial that along with interrogation
techniques like waterboarding blighted the U.S.’s track record for treating prisoners in the so-called global war on terrorism. The prison camp on Cuba’s southern tip
may or may not be shuttered during Obama’s watch, but Gitmo,
in the metaphorical sense, may never really close. Nor is
America’s long war on terrorism about to end. Obama’s speech revealed a man “haunted” by the deaths of
innocents in drone strikes and wrestling with the balance between national security and the Constitution’s
integrity. But while he announced tighter standards for ordering drone strikes abroad (including an unspoken plan to
partly shift the program from the CIA to the theoretically more accountable Pentagon) and spoke of a day when the war might be declared over, Obama is
retaining broad powers to detain or kill suspected terrorists, to conduct aggressive surveillance and to use
military force in foreign nations. “To do nothing in the face of terrorist networks would invite far more
civilian casualties,” Obama said. “We must finish the work of defeating al-Qaeda and its associated forces.” Hungry
for Clarity At last count, military medical personnel at Gitmo were force-feeding 35 of the more than 100 inmates who refuse to eat. Twice a day, those men are
strapped into restraining chairs as tubes that run up their noses and down their throats fill their stomachs with a compound called Ensure, a supplement used by
everyone from athletes to dieters. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has called force-feeding a violation of international law, and the World Medical
Association, of which the U.S. is a member, declared in 1991 that the practice is “never ethically acceptable” unless a prisoner consents or is unable to make a rational
choice. (The WMA calls it “ethical to allow a determined hunger striker to die.”) Although Remes says he suspects the inmates at Gitmo are aware of the President’s
speech and that some may even have watched it on television, he doubts that the hunger strikes will end anytime soon. “Obama has no credibility with the detainees,”
he says. “I bet they didn’t even look up from their chessboards.” Then, recalling that after recent scuffles with their guards, inmates were barred from congregating, he
adds, “No, they’re not playing chess. They’re not even allowed to be together.” A lack of faith in Obama is one reason for the hunger strikes (although detainees have
also alleged improper treatment by guards, including charges of mishandling Korans, that the military denies). Among the hunger strikers are 86 who have been
declared safe for release—some of them by two different administrations—and who were crushed when Obama failed to deliver on his 2009 promise to close Gitmo.
Should They Stay or Should They Go? Understanding why Gitmo hasn’t closed requires understanding who exactly is there. The camp holds three types of inmates,
each posing different challenges. The first group consists of those 86 detainees deemed safe to release to their home countries or third nations, so long as they can be
monitored and accounted for to ensure they don’t take up arms against the U.S. The second group consists of suspected terrorists whom the Administration is
prosecuting or plans to charge with specific crimes. The third group consists of prisoners too dangerous to simply release—for reasons that could include a suspected
organizational role in al-Qaeda, explosives training or in some cases an openly stated desire to kill Americans—but also impossible to put on trial, maybe because of
evidence rendered inadmissible by torture; because the troops who captured them didn’t collect evidence; or because they supported al-Qaeda before the U.S. made
that a crime for foreigners overseas. The first group is the easiest to deal with. Obama has the freedom to send the 86 men home on his own. Fifty-six of them are from
Yemen—all of whom could be there by now had al-Qaeda’s Yemeni affiliate, whose leaders included an ex–Gitmo detainee, not tried to bomb a Northwest Airlines
flight on Christmas Day 2009, leading Obama to halt detainee transfers back to the country. Obama now says improvements in the Yemeni government’s ability to
monitor repatriated detainees allows him to lift his self-imposed moratorium on returning detainees there. He can likewise dispatch the rest of the cleared inmates to
other countries unilaterally. Republicans warn that even some of those detainees deemed safe for release will inevitably join forces with Islamic radicals—as did
Saeed al-Shihri months after his 2007 release from Gitmo, eventually rising to the No. 2 spot in al-Qaeda’s Yemeni branch before being killed by a drone strike earlier
this year. “I don’t trust the government” in Yemen, Republican Representative Peter King told ABC’s This Week on May 26. But they can’t prevent Obama from
proceeding. How fast he’ll move is another question: Obama said each of the Yemenis must first undergo yet another review. The second and third groups are
considerably tougher cases. Obama would like to move the trials by military commissions now under way at Guantánamo to a location in the U.S. and bring any new
cases against prosecutable suspects on American soil, either in military or civilian courts. He also presumably intends to move to highly secure sites in the U.S. the
roughly 46 who can be neither released nor tried, until some solution can be found for them. But right now Obama can’t move any detainees into the U.S. without
Congress’s help. In 2009 he tried to resettle some low-risk prisoners in the U.S. and also proposed trying alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four
other Gitmo inmates in federal court. A furious backlash from conservatives and even many Democrats who feared the soft-on-terrorists label prompted Congress to
block inmate transfers into the U.S. for any reason. And while Obama’s May 23 speech may have stirred the hearts of some liberal supporters, it doesn’t seem to have
moved the Republicans whose support he’ll need to move detainees into the U.S., particularly in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives. “I don’t get the sense
that this pressure is having an impact” on House Republicans, says Representative Adam Smith, the top-ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.
Many Republicans argue that the risk of detainees’ committing future acts of terrorism outweighs the damage Guantánamo does to the U.S.’s image. And they have
little interest in Obama’s appetite for moving more terrorism cases into civilian courts. Lately Obama has tried speaking the language Republicans best understand—
spending—by pointing out that each inmate at Gitmo costs $800,000 per year to house, for a total of about $150 million per year in operations. But when it comes to
closing Gitmo, Smith says, many of the Republicans whose support Obama would need to approve transfers to U.S. prisons have boxed themselves in politically.
House Speaker John Boehner, for instance, has called the prison a “world-class facility” and in 2010 said he wouldn’t vote to close it “if you put a gun to my head.”
The broader themes of Obama’s speech may not have helped the Guantánamo cause either. Far from agreeing with the President’s talk of a severely weakened alQaeda and his aspiration to wind down the war on terrorism, some Republicans accused him of complacency and retreat. Newt Gingrich called Obama’s vision
“breathtakingly, stunningly naive.” Such talk is hardly the groundwork for a new spirit of cooperation. Some Problems Have No Solution Even
assuming
that the president can close Gitmo by resettling some detainees in other countries and bringing the rest to
trials and prisons in the U.S., a major problem will remain: What to do with the 48 detainees who can’t be
tried or released for fear that they will return to the “battlefield” of the war on terrorism? After all, holding
prisoners without charges would seem to violate the Constitution’s fundamental habeas corpus guarantee .
Obama doesn’t claim to have a clear answer, and his speech punted the question. He said only that “once we commit to a process of closing [Guantánamo], I am
confident that this legacy problem can be resolved, consistent with our commitment to the rule of law.” For now, Obama deals with this legal equivalent of radioactive
waste by treating those inmates as prisoners of war. In March 2009, Obama’s lawyers filed a legal brief justifying detention of Gitmo detainees under the laws of
war—in this case the war on al-Qaeda, made official by Congress’s September 2001 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF), which allowed for the
invasion of Afghanistan and other counterterrorism efforts. Ironically, “while it decries Guantánamo as contrary to American values, the Obama Administration has
convinced courts of its legal validity,” says Matthew Waxman, a former Bush detainee policy official now at Columbia Law School. Rather than see Obama stretch
that validity in new directions, one prominent human rights lawyer has actually argued for keeping Gitmo open. Closing
it now “would do more
harm than good,” human rights lawyer and Georgetown law professor Jennifer Daskal wrote in a January
New York Times op-ed, because it would mean simply opening up a similar camp in the U.S., thereby “setting
a precedent and creating a facility readily available to future Presidents wanting to rid themselves of a range
of potentially dangerous actors.” According to this vision, Gitmo would close when the war on terrorism is finally
considered over. Lawyers for detainees might argue that should happen once the U.S.’s lead combat role in Afghanistan ends in late 2014, for instance.
Obama also says he’d like Congress to revisit the AUMF, perhaps to narrow its scope or even to declare the war over. “Usually if you’re holding prisoners of war, you
AUMF, a top Pentagon
official testified that the war on al-Qaeda could last 10 to 20 more years. Some Republicans, including Senator John McCain,
release them at the end of hostilities,” says C. Dixon Osburn of Human Rights First. But at a recent Senate hearing on the
have suggested that the law should be broadened, not narrowed or repealed. Rhetoric about the founders aside, it’s hard to imagine Obama’s releasing trained alQaeda members who have not renounced terrorism into the wild, as it were. “The Administration’s view seems to be that so long as it’s only a small number of very
dangerous al-Qaeda terrorists, it is legitimate to hold them without trial,” Waxman says. Obama would prefer not to hold them in the prison that stains America’s
international reputation. But he may find the moral high ground he seeks is simply out of his reach.
A2: No Motive
Al-Qaeda’s leader has plans for nuclear terrorism, mass death fits with their values
Mowatt Larssen 10 (Rolf Mowatt-Larssen is a senior fellow at the Belfer Center for Science and International
Affairs at Harvard University. He served over three decades in the U.S. Army, CIA, and Energy Department. Al
Qaeda’s nuclear ambitions, Foreign Policy, 11/16/2010,
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/11/16/al_qaedas_nuclear_ambitions?page=0,1)
First, America is a special object of Zawahiri's attention when discussing a nuclear attack. Zawahiri explicitly
ties U.S. crimes to the alleged need to use WMD, quoting Fahd: "There is no doubt that the greatest enemy of
Islam and Muslims at this time is the Americans." Zawahiri further explains that he considers the United States to
be a "single juridical entity" under Islam. It's a verdict with chilling implications: Zawahiri means to say that all
Americans are valid targets, regardless of whether they are men, women, or children. This is not a mere aside; it is
a careful choice of words that reflects a seriousness of purpose. Indeed, he is at pains to prove his judiciousness. He
cites a variety of viewpoints from the Quran and hadiths (sayings of the Prophet Mohammed), some of which
support his judgments, others which do not. At times, he dramatically prefaces his conclusion with the words "I say
..." to draw attention to the fact that his judgments digress from the views held by some Islamic scholars; it is also a
way for Zawahiri -- a medical doctor, not a religious scholar by training -- to assume authority for himself as an
arbiter of Islamic law. Second, al Qaeda has reckoned with the horrific scale of a nuclear attack; indeed,
Zawahiri sees mass casualties as a point in WMDs' favor. Zawahiri's book explicitly justifies a potential attack
that could kill 10 million Americans. Again, that enormous figure is not merely tossed off casually by
Zawahiri. He believes that such a plan requires justification, and he is satisfied, at the conclusion of his book,
that he has done so.
A2: Violates International Law
International law allows torturing terrorist-solves for future attacks-memo specifies
Guantanamo Bay
Preist & Smith 4 (Dana & R. Jeffrey, American author and Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist. Priest has worked almost 20 years for
The Washington Post. Before becoming a full-time investigative reporter, Priest specialized in national security reporting for The Post, and wrote
many articles on the United States' "War on terror." In 2006 she won the Pulitzer Prize for Beat Reporting for her reporting on black site prisons.
In 2008 The Washington Post was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for the reporting of Priest and Anne Hull and photographer
Michel du Cille at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. & a reporter at the Washington Post and was awarded the Pulitzer Prize for Investigative
Reporting in 2006 (University of California, Santa Cruz). Smith was a senior writer from 1977 to 1986 for Science magazine and he won two
Science in Society Journalism Awards during that period. Afterward, his career has developed at the Washington Post. From 1986 to 1998, he
was a national security correspondent and, after that, he has been the Post's southern Europe bureau chief(Duke University, John Hopkins &
Columbia University), “Memo Offered Justification for Use of Torture Justice Dept. Gave Advice in 2002,” The Washington Post, June 8, 2004,
http://www.washingtonpost.com) SS
In August
2002, the Justice Department advised the White House that torturing al Qaeda terrorists in
captivity abroad "may be justified," and that international laws against torture "may be unconstitutional if
applied to interrogations" conducted in President Bush's war on terrorism, according to a newly obtained
memo. If a government employee were to torture a suspect in captivity, "he would be doing so in order to
prevent further attacks on the United States by the Al Qaeda terrorist network," said the memo, from the Justice Department's office of legal
counsel, written in response to a CIA request for legal guidance. It added that arguments centering on "necessity and self-defense could provide
justifications that would eliminate any criminal liability" later. The memo seems to counter the pre-Sept. 11, 2001, assumption that
U.S. government personnel would never be permitted to torture captives. It was offered after the CIA began detaining and interrogating suspected al Qaeda leaders in
legal reasoning in the 2002
memo, which covered treatment of al Qaeda detainees in CIA custody, was later used in a March 2003 report by Pentagon lawyers
assessing interrogation rules governing the Defense Department's detention center at Guantanamo Bay,
Cuba. At that time, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had asked the lawyers to examine the logistical,
policy and legal issues associated with interrogation techniques. Bush administration officials say flatly that, despite the
discussion of legal issues in the two memos, it has abided by international conventions barring torture, and
that detainees at Guantanamo and elsewhere have been treated humanely, except in the cases of abuse at Abu
Ghraib prison in Iraq for which seven military police soldiers have been charged. Still, the 2002 and 2003 memos reflect the
Afghanistan and elsewhere in the wake of the attacks, according to government officials familiar with the document. The
Bush administration's desire to explore the limits on how far it could legally go in aggressively interrogating foreigners suspected of terrorism or of having
information that could thwart future attacks. In the 2002 memo, written for the CIA and addressed to White House Counsel Alberto R. Gonzales, the Justice
Department defined torture in a much narrower way, for example, than does the U.S. Army, which has historically carried out most wartime interrogations. In the
Justice Department's view -- contained in a 50-page document signed by Assistant Attorney General Jay S. Bybee and obtained by The Washington Post -- inflicting
moderate or fleeting pain does not necessarily constitute torture. Torture, the memo says, "must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical
injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death." By contrast, the Army's Field Manual 34-52, titled "Intelligence Interrogations," sets more
restrictive rules. For example, the Army prohibits pain induced by chemicals or bondage; forcing an individual to stand, sit or kneel in abnormal positions for
prolonged periods of time; and food deprivation. Under mental torture, the Army prohibits mock executions, sleep deprivation and chemically induced psychosis.
Human rights groups expressed dismay at the Justice Department's legal reasoning yesterday. "It is by leaps and bounds the worst thing I've seen since this whole Abu
Ghraib scandal broke," said Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch. "It appears that what they were contemplating was the commission of war crimes and looking
for ways to avoid legal accountability. The effect is to throw out years of military doctrine and standards on interrogations." But a spokesman for the White House
counsel's office said, "The president directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions." Mark Corallo, the
Justice Department's chief spokesman, said "the department does not comment on specific legal advice it has provided confidentially within the executive branch."
But he added: "It is the policy of the United States to comply with all U.S. laws in the treatment of detainees -- including the Constitution, federal statutes and
treaties." The CIA declined to comment. The Justice Department's interpretation for the CIA sought to provide guidance on what sorts of aggressive treatments might
not fall within the legal definition of torture. The 2002 memo, for example, included the interpretation that "it is difficult to take a specific act out of context and
conclude that the act in isolation would constitute torture." The memo named seven techniques that courts have considered torture, including severe beatings with
truncheons and clubs, threats of imminent death, burning with cigarettes, electric shocks to genitalia, rape or sexual assault, and forcing a prisoner to watch the torture
of another person. "While we cannot say with certainty that acts falling short of these seven would not constitute torture," the memo advised, ". . . we believe that
interrogation techniques would have to be similar to these in their extreme nature and in the type of harm caused to violate law." "For purely mental pain or suffering
to amount to torture," the memo said, "it must result in significant psychological harm of significant duration, e.g., lasting for months or even years." Examples
include the development of mental disorders, drug-induced dementia, "post traumatic stress disorder which can last months or even years, or even chronic depression."
Of mental torture, however, an interrogator could show he acted in good faith by "taking such steps as surveying professional literature, consulting with experts or
reviewing evidence gained in past experience" to show he or she did not intend to cause severe mental pain and that the conduct, therefore, "would not amount to the
acts prohibited by the statute." In 2003, the Defense Department conducted its own review of the limits that govern torture, in consultation with experts at the Justice
Department and other agencies. The aim of the March 6, 2003, review, conducted by a working group that included representatives of the military services, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and the intelligence community, was to provide a legal basis for what the group's report called "exceptional interrogations." Much of the reasoning in
the group's report and in the Justice Department's 2002 memo overlap. The documents, which address treatment of al Qaeda and Taliban detainees, were not written to
apply to detainees held in Iraq. In a draft of the working group's report, for example, Pentagon lawyers approvingly cited the Justice Department's 2002 position that
domestic and international laws prohibiting torture could be trumped by the president's wartime authority and any directives he issued. At the time, the Justice
Department's legal analysis, however, shocked some of the military lawyers who were involved in crafting the new guidelines, said senior defense officials and
military lawyers. "Every flag JAG lodged complaints," said one senior Pentagon official involved in the process, referring to the judge advocate generals who are
military lawyers of each service. "It's really unprecedented. For almost 30 years we've taught the Geneva Convention one way," said a senior military attorney. "Once
you start telling people it's okay to break the law, there's no telling where they might stop." A U.S. law enacted in 1994 bars torture by U.S. military personnel
anywhere in the world. But the Pentagon group's report, prepared under the supervision of General Counsel William J. Haynes II, said that "in order to respect the
President's inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign . . . [the prohibition against torture] must be construed as inapplicable to interrogations
undertaken pursuant to his Commander-in-Chief authority." The
Pentagon group's report, divulged yesterday by the Wall Street Journal and obtained
further that the 1994 law barring torture "does not apply to the conduct of U.S. personnel" at
Guantanamo Bay. It also said the anti-torture law did apply to U.S. military interrogations that occurred outside U.S. "maritime and territorial jurisdiction,"
by The Post, said
such as in Iraq or Afghanistan. But it said both Congress and the Justice Department would have difficulty enforcing the law if U.S. military personnel could be shown
to be acting as a result of presidential orders. The report then parsed at length the definition of torture under domestic and international law, with an eye toward
guiding military personnel about legal defenses. The
Pentagon report uses language very similar to that in the 2002 Justice
Department memo written in response to the CIA's request: "If a government defendant were to harm an
enemy combatant during an interrogation in a manner that might arguably violate criminal prohibition, he
would be doing so in order to prevent further attacks on the United States by the al Qaeda terrorist
network," the draft states. "In that case, DOJ [Department of Justice] believes that he could argue that the
executive branch's constitutional authority to protect the nation from attack justified his actions." The draft goes
on to assert that a soldier's claim that he was following "superior orders" would be available for those engaged in "exceptional interrogations except where the conduct
goes so far as to be patently unlawful." It asserts, as does the Justice view expressed for the CIA, that the mere infliction of pain and suffering is not unlawful; the pain
or suffering must be severe.
A2: Information is not Reliable
Information from GITMO is reliable and valuable - empirics
Berenson 05(Bradford, lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office, “Why Guantanamo Bay
Should Stay Open”, NPR, 6/10/2005, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4697513
INSKEEP: As a former official in the White House, and now someone who remains involved in these issues on a private basis, what is your sense
of the value that the United States is getting out of those detainees? Mr. BERENSON: You know, my information is somewhat out of date on
this. But when it was more current, I was informed by people who were close to the process down there that there was
a considerable amount of valuable intelligence being derived from the Guantanamo detainees. But the gathering
of intelligence is not the only purpose of detaining these folks. The primary pre-eminent purpose is to prevent them from
returning to the fight against the United States, from planning terrorist acts against US civilians or against
our forces overseas. It's a matter of incapacitation and intelligence. INSKEEP: In 2004, an FBI memorandum was
written, which has since been made public, in which the techniques being used at Guantanamo Bay to get intelligence were
described as so coercive that the information was, quote, "suspect at best." It does raise the question about whether we're getting anything
useful. Mr. BERENSON: It's not surprising that to the eyes of domestic law enforcement officials, military interrogation and military intelligence
operations appeared harsh. That isn't to say that the intelligence we're getting from the Guantanamo detainees isn't
valuable or isn't reliable. INSKEEP: Isn't it kind of a truism that if someone is tortured they will say anything to stop the torture? Mr.
BERENSON: Well, there's a big difference between true physical coercion and torture and the application of
psychological pressure. And determining whether someone is telling you the truth is something that these
interrogators are skilled at and, from what I understand, we've learned a lot about terrorist financing, bomb
construction, al-Qaeda's structure, training and its means of smuggling agents into the United States from
interrogations of those held at Guantanamo .
A2: Obama Said It Fails
The Obama administration underestimates the value of enhanced interrogation, past
documents prove.
Thiessen 2011 Mark, columnist for Washington Post and visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute,
former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfield, The CIA's Questioning Worked, The Washington
Post, 04/21/2009, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-04-21/opinions/36894735_1_ksm-interrogations-abuzubaydah
All this confirms information that I and others have described publicly. But just as the memo begins to describe
previously undisclosed details of what enhanced interrogations achieved, the page is almost entirely blacked
out. The Obama administration released pages of unredacted classified information on the techniques used to
question captured terrorist leaders but pulled out its black marker when it came to the details of what those
interrogations achieved. Yet there is more information confirming the program's effectiveness. The Office of Legal
Counsel memo states "we discuss only a small fraction of the important intelligence CIA interrogators have obtained
from KSM" and notes that "intelligence derived from CIA detainees has resulted in more than 6,000 intelligence
reports and, in 2004, accounted for approximately half of the [Counterterrorism Center's] reporting on al
Qaeda." The memos refer to other classified documents -- including an "Effectiveness Memo" and an "IG Report,"
which explain how "the use of enhanced techniques in the interrogations of KSM, Zubaydah and others . . . has
yielded critical information." Why didn't Obama officials release this information as well? Because they know that
if the public could see the details of the techniques side by side with evidence that the program saved
American lives, the vast majority would support continuing it.
A2: Don’t Have Nukes
Terrorists have nuclear weapons and are ready to use them-potential nuclear 9/11
Watt 11 (Holly, the Telegraph's Whitehall Editor. She joined the Telegraph in April 2009 after four years at the
Sunday Times. In 2008, she was awarded the Laurence Stern fellowship and spent the summer working at the
Washington Post. She was a key member of the Telegraph’s expenses team and has been nominated for Scoop of the
Year four times - most recently in 2012. She was shortlisted for Young Journalist of the Year at the 2010 British
Press Awards and News Reporter of the Year and Political Journalist of the Year in 2011, “Wikileaks: Al-Qaeda
plotted chemical and nuclear attack on the West,” Telegraph Media Group Limited 2013, April 26, 2011,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/wikileaks/8472810/Wikileaks-Al-Qaeda-plotted-chemical-andnuclear-attack-on-the-West.html) SS
One of the terrorist group’s most senior figures warned that al-Qaeda had obtained and hidden a nuclear
bomb in Europe that would be detonated if Osama bin Laden was killed or captured. Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, the al-Qaeda mastermind currently facing trial in America over the 9/11 atrocities, was involved in
a range of plans including attacks on US nuclear plants and a “nuclear hellstorm” plot in America. A number
of the conspiracies admitted by detainees during interrogation in Cuba seem improbable, but other plans were
detailed and thoroughly analysed. Some detainees displayed an apparently comprehensive knowledge of Western
countries’ defences against nuclear attack. According to the US WikiLeaks files, a Libyan detainee, Abu AlLibi, “has knowledge of al-Qaeda possibly possessing a nuclear bomb”. Al-Libi, the operational chief of alQaeda and a close associate of Osama bin Laden before his detention, allegedly knew the location of a nuclear
bomb in Europe that would be detonated if bin Laden were killed or captured. Sharif al-Masri, an Egyptian
captured in 2004, allegedly claimed that Al-Libi had said the nuclear bomb’s operatives “would be Europeans
of Arab or Asian descent”. The notes show that US interrogators spent large amounts of time trying to
establish whether al-Qaeda had access to nuclear material. Salman Yehah Kasa Hassan, a Yemeni operative,
allegedly said that “an associate of his brother was apprehended attempting to sell uranium for $500,000”.
However, after the Yemeni authorities confiscated the uranium, “it was rumoured to have disappeared in a
transaction with [Osama bin Laden]”. Mohommad Zahir, a “weapons dealer” from Afghanistan, was arrested
in 2003 allegedly carrying a memo referring to “two or three cans of uranium”, “intended for the production
of an 'atom bomb’”. Another detainee “discussed the issue of buried uranium in Kandahar”. Other detainees talked
about “a ship purchased by al-Qaeda” which was intended to be used “to transport weapons, explosives, and
possibly uranium purchased from countries along the Red Sea and Mediterranean Sea”. Of particular
concern to the US was a network of nuclear scientists and military officers called “Ummah Tameer Nau”,
which was set up “to assist in spreading the modern achievements of science and technology among
Muslims”. Al-Qaeda apparently also regularly explored the use of chemicals in attacks, believing that getting
these into the US would be easier than nuclear material. The use of biological agents, including anthrax, was
also considered. One detainee allegedly claimed that Ammar al-Baluchi, the nephew of Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed, discussed “how to smuggle explosives and chemicals into England”. According to the US
documents, another key al-Qaeda operative discussed a “dirty bomb” with other plotters, which “would
combine a regular explosive with uranium or other radiological material”. The nuclear material “would be
disbursed throughout a limited region due to the blast, exposing all within the area to the radiated material”.
The terrorists’ aim was to cause “latent illness for most, as well as widespread panic far exceeding the
affected area”.
Al-Qaeda potentially steal nuclear weapons from Pakistan
Gregory 13 (Shaun, Professor of International Security in the School of Government and International Affairs at
Durham University, “The Terrorist Threat to Nuclear Weapons in Pakistan,” European Leadership Network June 4,
2013, http://www.europeanleadershipnetwork.org/the-terrorist-threat-to-nuclear-weapons-in-pakistan_613.html)
All nuclear weapons states understand, however, that the terrorist threat to nuclear weapons and nuclear
weapons related technology is a dynamic and evolving one, shaped by factors which are both endogenous and
exogenous to the terrorist groups themselves. The SPD (and behind them the United States and the wider
international community) understands that the rapid growth of Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal - as numbers
increase, types of nuclear weapons diversify, and new fissile material production facilities come on stream –
increases the security and safety challenges. So too does the proliferation and strength of terrorist groups in
Pakistan, including those such as Al-Qaeda which have articulated a desire to possess nuclear weapons or
other WMD, and closely allied groups like the Mehsud Pakistan Taliban, Lashkar-e-Jhangvi and Jaish-e-Muhammed
which have shown themselves capable of striking against hardened military targets in Pakistan.
A2: Safer Interrogations Solve
Only Enhanced Interrogation solves, they will resist any other method
Thiessen 2011 Mark, columnist for Washington Post and visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute,
former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfield, The CIA's Questioning Worked, The Washington
Post, 04/21/2009, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-04-21/opinions/36894735_1_ksm-interrogations-abuzubaydah
In releasing highly classified documents on the CIA interrogation program last week, President Obama declared
that the techniques used to question captured terrorists "did not make us safer." This is patently false. The
proof is in the memos Obama made public -- in sections that have gone virtually unreported in the media.
Consider the Justice Department memo of May 30, 2005. It notes that "the CIA believes 'the intelligence
acquired from these interrogations has been a key reason why al Qaeda has failed to launch a spectacular
attack in the West since 11 September 2001.' . . . In particular, the CIA believes that it would have been unable
to obtain critical information from numerous detainees, including [Khalid Sheik Mohammed] and Abu
Zubaydah, without these enhanced techniques." The memo continues: "Before the CIA used enhanced
techniques . . . KSM resisted giving any answers to questions about future attacks, simply noting, 'Soon you will
find out.' " Once the techniques were applied, "interrogations have led to specific, actionable intelligence, as
well as a general increase in the amount of intelligence regarding al Qaeda and its affiliates."
Enhanced interrogation is the only way to get to the psychological breaking point that
produces actionable intelligence.
Thiessen 2011 Mark, columnist for Washington Post and visiting fellow of the American Enterprise Institute,
former speechwriter for George W. Bush and Donald Rumsfield, Documented: The WikiLeaks That Show
Enhanced Interrogation Worked, World Affairs, http://www.worldaffairsjournal.org/article/documented-wikileaksshow-enhanced-interrogation-worked
Critics claim that enhanced techniques do not produce good intelligence because people will say anything to get
the techniques to stop. But the memos note that, "as Abu Zubaydah himself explained with respect to enhanced
techniques, 'brothers who are captured and interrogated are permitted by Allah to provide information when
they believe they have reached the limit of their ability to withhold it in the face of psychological and physical
hardship." In other words, the terrorists are called by their faith to resist as far as they can -- and once they
have done so, they are free to tell everything they know. This is because of their belief that "Islam will
ultimately dominate the world and that this victory is inevitable." The job of the interrogator is to safely help
the terrorist do his duty to Allah, so he then feels liberated to speak freely.
No other place for Gitmo inmates
Baxter, 2012 (Adrienne Baxter, Adrienne Baxter has a master's degree in Social Work from The University of
South Florida. Adrienne has several years of experience working in different health-care-related settings including
substance abuse treatment facilities, home health care, and psychiatric hospitals. Her articles focus on state, local
and national social issues, especially those which are related to health care in the U.S, “Guantanamo Bay, the
nation's most expensive prison”, Examiner, 6/7/12, http://www.examiner.com/article/guantanamo-bay-the-nation-smost-expensive-prison)
President Obama wanted to close down Guantanamo Bay in 2009 after he was elected but the U.S. Senate voted
90-6 to block the closure because, at that time, the plan was to somehow move/ integrate these detainees to
various prisons within the U.S. which most Senators considered to be much too dangerous. If these terrorist
suspects are so dangerous that our government doesn't want to mix them in with our own prison population
and no other countries in the entire world will accept them , why are the U.S. taxpayers having their hardearned tax money spent on giving these detainees a life of luxury? Why not just make an example of them and
execute them? There are some readers who will say that, according to the nation's court system, a person is
'innocent until proven guilty' but these terrorist suspects did not grow up in this country and they certainly
do not play by our rules. For such 'bleeding heart liberals', invite one of these terrorist suspects to your house
for dinner with your family and have a conversation with him (through an Interpreter). Your kids may be greatly
impressed to learn that he might have read the 'Harry Potter' series of books which are provided in the Gitmo library
in Russian and Arabic. Allow him to pray in your house. (He knows you can't understand a word he says so he'll
probably be praying for the death of you and your family.) After that experience, rejoin the rest of the world with a
realistic outlook regarding the prospects of anything good coming out of Guantanamo Bay. Also, write a letter to
your Senator and Representative to tell them what you think about the government spending $140 million this year
on that facility or $800,000 per detainee.
A2: K Solves Terror
Terrorism is the spoiler – prevents the alt from succeeding
Harris ‘4 (Essayist for Policy Review, Lee, Civilization and its Enemies, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1260214/posts)
This is how mankind always thought of the enemy- as the one who, if you do not kill him first, will sooner or later kill you. And those who see
the world this way see it very differently from those who do not. This is the major fact of our time. We are caught in dthe midst of a
conflict between those for whom the category of the enemy is essential to their way of organizing all human
experience and those who have banished even the idea of the enemy from both public discourse and even their
innermost thoughts. But those who abhor thinking of the world through the category of the enemy must still be prepared to think about the
category of the enemy. That is, even if you refuse to think of anyone else as an enemy, you must acknowledge that
there are people who do in fact think this way. Yet even this minimal step is a step that many of our leading
intellectuals refuse to take, despite the revelation that occurred on 9/11. they want to see 9/11 as a means to an end and not
an end in itself. But 9/11 was an end in itself, and that is where we must begin. Why do they hate us? They hate us because we
are their enemy…It is the enemy who defines us as his enemy, and in making this definition he changes us,
and changes us whether we like it or not. We cannot be the same after we have been defined as an enemy as we were
before. That is why those who uphold the values of the Enlightenment so often refuse to recognize that those who are trying to kill us
are their enemy. They hope that by pretending that the enemy is simply misguided, or misunderstood, or
politically immature, he will cease to be an enemy. This is an illusion. To see the enemy as someone who is
merely an awkward negotiator of sadly lacking in savoir faire and diplomatic aplomb is perverse. It shows contempt for the
depth and sincerity of his convictions, a terrible mistake to make when you are dealing with someone who
wants you dead. We are the enemy of those who murdered us on 9/11. And if you are an enemy, then you
have an enemy. When you recognize it, this fact must change everything about the way you see the world.
Criticism is useless at this time – we must confront terrorists that are hell bent to destroy us.
Peters 4 [Ralph, retired U.S. Army intelligence officer, Parameters, “In Praise of Attrition.”
Summer, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_2_34/ai_n6082901/pg_1 ]
Trust me. We don't need discourses. We need plain talk, honest answers, and the will to close with the enemy and
kill him. And to keep on killing him until it is unmistakably clear to the entire world who won. When military officers
start speaking in academic gobbledygook, it means they have nothing to contribute to the effectiveness of our forces. They badly need an
assignment to Fallujah. Consider our enemies in the War on Terror. Men who believe, literally, that they are on a mission
from God to destroy your civilization and who regard death as a promotion are not impressed by elegant maneuvers.
You must find them, no matter how long it takes, then kill them. If they surrender, you must accord them their rights
under the laws of war and international conventions. But, as we have learned so painfully from all the mindless,
leftwing nonsense spouted about the prisoners at Guantanamo, you are much better off killing them before they have
a chance to surrender. We have heard no end of blather about network-centric warfare, to the great profit of defense
contractors. If you want to see a superb--and cheap example of "net-war," look at al Qaeda. The mere possession of
technology does not ensure that it will be used effectively. And effectiveness is what matters
Militaristic solutions foster long term peace – only killing terrorists can solve terrorism
Peters 4 [Ralph, retired U.S. Army intelligence officer, Parameters, “In Praise of Attrition.”
Summer, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0IBR/is_2_34/ai_n6082901/pg_1 ]
It is not enough to materially defeat your enemy. You must convince your enemy that he
has been defeated. You cannot do that by bombing empty buildings. You must be willing to
kill in the short term to save lives and foster peace in the long term. This essay does not suppose that
warfare is simple: "Just go out and kill' era." Of course, incisive attacks on command networks and control capabilities, well-considered
psychological operations, and humane treatment of civilians and prisoners matter profoundly, along with many other complex factors.
But at
a time when huckster contractors and "experts" who never served in uniform
prophesize bloodless wars and sterile victories through technology, it's essential that those
who actually must fight our nation's wars not succumb to the facile theories or shimmering
vocabulary of those who wish to explain war to our soldiers from comfortable offices. It is
not a matter of whether attrition is good or bad. It's necessary. Only the shedding of their
blood defeats resolute enemies. Especially in our struggle with God-obsessed terrorists--the
most implacable enemies our nation has ever faced there is no economical solution.
Unquestionably, our long-term strategy must include a wide range of efforts to do what we,
as outsiders, can to address the environmental conditions in which terrorism arises and
thrives (often disappointingly little--it's a self-help world). But, for now, all we can do is to impress our enemies,
our allies, and all the populations in between that we are winning and will continue to win.
The only way to do that is through killing.
A2: K = Root Cause of Terror
There is no root cause of terrorism – that theory is a fallacy
Weiner ’88 [Justus R. Weiner, Director of the Division of American Law and former Assistant Professor of
International Relations and Law at Boston University School of Law, “Terrorism: Israel’s Legal Responses”, 14
Syracuse J. Int’l L. & Com. 184, 1988]
Political scientists, sociologists, psychologists and others theorize why terrorist acts are committed against Israeli targets.
One popular theory is the “root cause.” This thesis claims that were not for the frustration, deprivation, and misery of the Palestinian
people, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) would not commit acts of terrorism. A typical intellectual argument excusing PLO terror
reasons: “Shying away from analyzing the motives for terror, or the political, economic and historical environments that breed it, overlooks the
often symbiotic relationship between a terrorist and the governments and policies he fights against.” Others go one step further and turn an
explanation into a justification. Yassir Arafat, the Chairman of the PLO Executive Committtee, argued: “The use of the pro-Israeli media of the
word ‘terrorism’ does not intimidate us, especially when it is used by forces that have colonialized peoples for hundreds of years, and accused
freedom fighters of being ‘terrorists’ when they fought against occupation, terrorism and racial discrimination until they won their
independence….” Regrettably, this justification has gained considerable support at the United Nations. Benzion Netanyahu, the Israeli
Ambassador to the United Nations, has written in response: The typical stratagem at the United Nations, for example, has been to justify
terrorism by calling it a struggle for national liberation. This is perverse enough in itself, because terrorism is always unjustifiable, regardless of
professed or real goals. But it is perverse in another way. For the real goals of terrorists are in practice related to their methods. History has
repeatedly given us advance warning. Those who deliberately butcher women and children do not have liberation in mind. It is not only that the
ends of terrorists do not justify the means that they chose. It is that the choice of means indicates what the true ends are. Far from being fighters
for freedom, the terrorists are the forerunners of a new tyranny. It is instructive to note that the French Resistance did not resort to the systematic
killing of German women and children, well within reach in occupied France. A few years later, in Algeria, the FLN showed no such restraint
against French occupation. France, of course, is today a democracy. Algeria is mearly another of the despotisms where terrorists have come to
power. Realistically, the “root cause” theory should be recognized as the “root cause fallacy.” This is because, on a global
basis, there
is scant evidence to support any direct correlation between those who have suffered and those who
commit acts of terrorism. Indeed on both an individual and group level, many of those who have suffered most scrupulously
avoid such acts. The PLO, by contrast, purports to represent the Palestinian people, a group with options for non-violent political action and
resources including wealth and education. Yet the PLO deliberately engages in terrorist acts while eschewing all other means of political redress.
Any Arab leader showing the slightest inclination towards accommodation with Israel has risked assassination. Thus, PLO terror should be
recognized as a cause for, not the result of, Palestinian frustration, desperation, and misery.
The most comprehensive statistical studies prove this to be true
Stein ‘7 [Zachary R. Stern, “The Face of Terrorism: Toward a Terrorist Profile” a study self-described here:
This study focuses on a more
important and substantial question than the definition of terrorism. It seeks to understand the root causes of terrorism or, at the very least, to
dispel popular misconceptions about those causes. If optimists like President Bush are to be believed, reducing global poverty and increasing
education levels will result in a decrease in global terrorism. This approach is based on the assumption that economic disadvantage and the
inaccessibility or the denial of proper schooling creates fertile breeding grounds for terrorism. Equally unsatisfactory as an explanation, is the
opposite hypothesis, exemplified by the work of Alan Krueger, that education and financial well-being actually help explain how and why
terrorism is engendered. The assumptions of both sides are not borne out by the facts. They belie the complexity of the individuals and the
collective histories that produce terrorists. Terrorists are deeply committed individuals, willing to risk imprisonment and death for their cause.
This characteristic would indicate that ideology, and not demographic background, is the leading cause of terrorism. Since ideology and one’s
commitment to it are by not easily quantifiable (nor has anyone attempted to quantify them, to date), this study will seek to disprove the
demographic background argument by reviewing the relevant literature, and to further establish the point by analyzing individual terrorists’
backgrounds from a wide cross-section. It will also seek to provide some tentative answers to the question that captivates counter-terrorism
experts, psychologists, and just about everyone who worries about terrorism: why does someone become a terrorist? This paper is organized as
follows: first, a literature review of relevant subject material; second, a description of the methods used in this study; third, a description of the
various data sources used in this study; fourth, regressional analysis of the data sources; fifth, non-regressional analysis and anecdotal cases from
this study; sixth, and finally, conclusions of this study, Spring 2007]
With no root cause of terrorism readily identifiable, terrorism cannot be extinguished at its source, and
individuals cannot be deterred from pursuing its means in the hope of securing their desired ends. This leaves
strong intelligence as the best tool available to counterterrorism. While continuing with research into terrorist demographics
and profiling, the majority of resources must be directed for the most effective counterterrorism strategy, and thus in many ways we must move
away from a terrorist profile. Instead, terrorist organizations must be infiltrated, their leaders rounded up, and their cells
broken.
Politics DA
Obama Good
Bipartisan support of keeping Guantanamo Bay among Congress and their
constituents,
Catalini 13(Michael, Catalini is a staff writer covering politics. Previously at National Journal, he was deputy
editor of Influence Alley, covering Congress and K Street. He graduated from Penn State with a bachelor's degree in
journalism and has a master's degree in government from Johns Hopkins. Political Barriers Stand Between Obama
and Closing Guantanamo Facility, National Journal, May 3rd 2013,
http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/political-barriers-stand-between-obama-and-closing-guantanamo-facility20130503)
The last time President Obama tried to close the Guantanamo Bay detention center, Congress stopped him abruptly.
The Senate did what it rarely does: It voted in bipartisan fashion, blocking his attempt at funding the closure. Four years
later, and the political barriers that blocked the president from closing the camp that now houses 166 detainees are as immovable as
ever. Moving the prisoners to facilities in the U.S., a solution the administration suggested, proved to be a political minefield in 2009. Most
Americans oppose closing the base, according to a polls, and congressional leaders have balked at taking action. The Cuban camp is grabbing
headlines again because of a hunger strike among the detainees. Nearly 100 have stopped eating, and the military is forcing them to eat by
placing tubes through their noses, the Associated Press reported. The president reconfirmed his opposition to the camp, responding to a question
about the recent hunger strikes at Guantanamo Bay with regret in his voice. “Well, it is not a surprise to me that we've got problems in
Guantanamo, which is why, when I was campaigning in 2007 and 2008 and when I was elected in 2008, I said we need to close Guantanamo. I
continue to believe that we've got to close Guantanamo,” he said. Obama blamed his failure to follow through on a campaign promise on
lawmakers. “Now, Congress determined that they would not let us close it,” he said. Despite Obama’s desire to close the base
and his pledge this week to “go back to this,” he touched on a political reality: Lawmakers are not inclined to touch the issue. "The president
stated that the reason Guantanamo has not closed was because of Congress. That's true," Majority Leader Harry Reid
told reporters last month, declining to elaborate. The stakes for Obama on this issue are high when it comes to his liberal base,
who would like to see him display the courage of his convictions and close the camp. But the political will is lacking, outside a small contingent
of lawmakers, including Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois and five other liberal Democrats who sided with Obama in 2009, and left-leaning opinion
writers. Congressional Democrats, unlike Obama, will have to face voters again. And closing the camp is deeply unpopular. A
Washington Post/ABC News poll in February 2012 showed that 70 percent of Americans wanted to keep the camp open to detain “terrorist
suspects,” and in a 2009 Gallup Poll, a majority said they would be upset if it shut down . In 2009, the Senate voted 90-6 to block the
president’s efforts at closing the camp. Obama had signed an order seeking to close the detention center, but the Senate’s vote denied the
administration the $80 million needed to fund the closure. Closing the camp in Cuba and bringing the detainees into the United States grates
against the political sensibilities of many lawmakers. Jim Manley, a Democratic strategist who served as Reid’s spokesman at the time,
remembers the debate very well. “I'm still not sure that there's much of an appetite among Democrats on the Hill to
try and deal with this issue once and for all,” Manley said in an interview.
Plan unpopular in a bipartisan and especially Republican stance in both the House and
Senate
Brown 2013(Hayes, Brown is a National Security Reporter/Blogger with ThinkProgress.org. Prior to joining
ThinkProgress, Hayes worked as a contractor at the Department of Homeland Security. Republicans Are Resisting
Obama’s Renewed Attempt To Close Gitmo, Thinkprogress, May 7th, 2013
http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/05/07/1974601/republicans-vow-to-block-obamas-renewed-attempt-to-closegitmo/?mobile=nc)
President Obama’s renewed calls to close the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba are already being met with
promises of further stonewalling from Republicans in Congress, before a new plan can even be put forward. It’s not new that
Republicans oppose the idea that closing a prison that has been for years now a symbol of U.S. disregard for human rights would be in the
interests of the United States, having blocked administration proposals several times. And now, Republicans are already shooting down
Obama’s renewed push, mostly based on previous proposals to transport detainees to “supermax” prisons in the
United States: Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY): “There is wide, bipartisan opposition in
Congress to the president’s goal of moving those terrorists to American cities and towns.” Sen. Lindsay
Graham (R-SC): “[The detainees are] individuals hell-bent on our destruction and destroying our way of
life.” Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL): “All of the prisoners housed at Guantanamo are terrorists. They pose an
obvious threat to our national security, and they should not be allowed to set foot on our soil.” Sen. Lamar
Alexander (R-TN): “The American people expect us to keep them safe. I have yet to hear one good reason
why moving these terrorists from off our shores right into the heart of our country makes us safer.” Rep.
Marsha Blackburn (R-TN): “The president needs to realize that the Global War on Terrorism did not end with the
killing of Osama bin Laden. The Boston bombing is a sharp reminder that there is still a clear and present threat to
our American way of life from those that mean us harm.” Rep. Jimmy Duncan (R-TN): “[Detainees] are not U.S. citizens
and should not be given the same rights and privileges as if they were. [...] I do not support any plan for these
prisoners that puts them on U.S. soil.”
Plan is unpopular – alternatives are viewed as less safe and domestic holding has a NIMBY
attitude amongst politicians.
Rogan 12(Tom, Why Guantanamo Bay should remain open, Daily Caller, September 24th, 2012,
http://dailycaller.com/2012/09/24/why-guantanamo-bay-should-remain-open/)
As I see it, there are two major considerations that should drive the debate about Guantanamo’s future. The first is whether keeping the facility
open is the best way for the U.S. government to protect the American people. I think it is. It offers several compelling advantages
over the alternatives. For one, the detainees are guarded by well-trained MPs, isolated from support and held
in a place from which escape would be nearly impossible. Remember, many Guantanamo detainees are resourceful,
ideologically committed enemies of the United States who have stated that they want to maim and kill Americans, so it’s
important that they’re kept in a facility that’s as secure as possible. Closing the Guantanamo facility and
opening a new detention facility in the U.S. would pose profound security risks. The new facility would
become a beacon for extremists and an expensive, highly complex challenge to secure. Just look at what happened when the Obama
administration attempted to try Khalid Sheik Mohammed in New York City (an effort which it has since abandoned). And while many
politicians love the idea of a domestic detention facility, few want one in their backyard.
Plan unpopular – republicans and democrats want military justice
NYT 12 (New York Times. “Close Guantanamo Prison.” New York Times 25 November 2012. Web.)
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/26/opinion/close-guantanamo-prison.html?_r=0 EW
Mr. Obama did not say how he intended to move the issue forward in his second term or break the
Congressional logjam. The fact is, Guantánamo cannot be emptied without ending the Congressionally
imposed restrictions on transferring prisoners to the United States; on using funds to prepare facilities on
American soil that could house Guantánamo detainees; and on releasing dozens of detainees who pose no threat, if
they ever did, and who have been held far too long without charges or trial. If Mr. Obama is serious about
fulfilling his pledge — and we trust he is — he needs to become more engaged this time around and be willing
to spend political capital. Republicans, and some Democrats, who have helped to prevent the closing of the
Guantánamo prison are implacable, and dedicated to a propagandistic argument that military justice for
terrorists is somehow tougher and more reliable than civilian justice. The opposite is true, but the administration
has made the case poorly.
Congress continues to shoot the plan down
Weill 13 (Anna D Weill, student at Columbia University. “Guantanamo Bay Hunger Strike: Gitmo Inmates
Starve to Make Their Voices Heard. PolicyMic April 2013. Web.)
https://www.policymic.com/articles/38409/guantanamo-bay-hunger-strike-gitmo-inmates-starve-to-make-theirvoices-heard/491311 EW
When President Barack Obama took office in 2009, he vowed to shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison within
a year. When Congress vehemently shot down this plan, Obama suggested building a facility to house the
detainees in Illinois. Once again, Congress refused, and banned the use of any American money for the
transfer of Gitmo prisoners. One purpose of this ban was to prevent any of the detainees from obtaining a civil
trial. They claimed that the suspects should be handled by the military only. Soon, Gitmo was considered
"President Obama's shame." And as the hunger strike gains momentum, with the military officials treating it as a
suicide attempt from the prisoners and therefore continuing to force-feed, President Obama may be forced to rethink
the whole situation. Some UN officials are urging him to renew his support for the closing of Guantanamo Bay.
Dip Cap
Links
Plan uses Dip Cap and puts National Security at risk
Schreiber, 2010 (Jeff Schreiber, Jeff Schreiber, founder and managing editor of America’s Right, wasn’t always
on the right side of the traditional political spectrum. Or the correct side, for that matter. A 2000 graduate from
Auburn University, Jeff took his Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and began his professional career at the Seneca
Daily Journal-Messenger, a small daily newspaper in the Golden Corner of the Palmetto State, where he covered
county and city government and more in Pickens County and Clemson, South Carolina, “A Few Notes on
WikiLeaks”, America’s Right, November 28, 2010, http://americasright.com/2010/11/28/a-few-notes-on-wikileaks/)
We don’t want terrorists in our country. The House GOP even introduced legislation looking to prevent just that
from happening. Should it come as a surprise that other nations feel the same way, so much so that what
amounts to diplomatic bribery needs to be undertaken in order to facilitate such a transfer? Unfortunately,
this administration cares so much about appeasing its far left base that it would rather spend what diplomatic
capital we have on achieving the goal of shuttering Guantanamo Bay–and thus putting our national security
at risk purely for the sake of politics–than reserve our capacity for deal-making for times in which we truly
need it — perhaps in the ongoing fight against Islamic jihad at its roots overseas.
Diplomatic Capital needed to close Gitmo
Schanzer, 2008 (David H. Schanzer, Areas of Expertise •National Security and Defense ◦Emergency
Preparedness ◦Homeland Security ◦Privacy and Civil Liberties ◦Terrorism & Bioterrorism Education: J.D., cum
laude, Harvard Law School, 1989 Editor, Harvard Law Review, 1987 A.B., cum laude, Harvard University, 1985
Research Categories: Terrorism, national security policy and law, homeland security, emergency preparedness &
response Research Description: Strategies and policies for combatting international and domestic terrorism, “New
Administration Should Move Swiftly to Close Guantánamo”, Duke Sanford School of Public Policy, November 6,
2008, http://news.sanford.duke.edu/news-type/commentary/2008/new-administration-should-move-swiftly-closeguant%C3%A1namo)
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.
Diplomatic Capital spent closing Guantanamo
AFP, 2011(“Obama vows repeal of Guantanamo curbs”, Google, Jan 7, 2011,
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jE7qFCw66V3W4TfCzfjXKzH9Nm0w?docId=CNG.a873
154189fae54fc673166df8ae65f2.7f1)
He said that other measures designed to prevent the administration transferring detainees to the custody or
effective control of foreign countries interfered with US foreign policy and national security imperatives. "We
must have the ability to act swiftly and to have broad flexibility in conducting our negotiations with foreign
countries," he said. The White House has spent substantial time and diplomatic capital trying to cajole foreign
partners to accept inmates from Guantanamo. In a press conference in December, Obama said that he remained
committed to closing the camp. "One of the most powerful tools we have to keep the American people safe is not
providing al Qaeda and jihadists recruiting tools for fledgling terrorists," he said.
Spending DA
1nc
Guantanamo closing will force U.S to waste money and spend more money on new ones
without much change to global opinion
Nemish 9 Major in the Air Force writing research report, To Close or Not to Close: Guantanamo Bay, Air
Command and Staff University, April 2009,
http://dtlweb.au.af.mil///exlibris/dtl/d3_1/apache_media/L2V4bGlicmlzL2R0bC9kM18xL2FwYWNoZV9tZWRpY
S8zMzgzOA==.pdf
Another reason to keep Guantanamo Bay open involves the amount of resources already invested in the
current facility. The U.S. has already spent a substantial amount of money to ensure Guantanamo Bay meets a
high standard for detainee operations. For instance, the government spent approximately $54 million to build
the high-security detention facilities.35 In addition, Guantanamo Bay added a new “expeditionary legal
complex” for the military commission trials at a price of $10 to $12 million.36 Another $4.4 million went
towards construction costs for a fence around the radio range where Joint Task Force- Guantanamo Bay (JTFGTMO) houses their electronic monitoring equipment.37 Annually, the government spends an estimated $125
million in operating costs.38 Finally, Guantanamo Bay has a medical facility with a staff of more than 100
personnel, up to 30 inpatient beds, a physical-therapy area, pharmacy, radiology department, central
sterilization area, and a single-bed operating room. Another popular argument for leaving Guantanamo Bay open
is that merely closing the prison will not guarantee a change in world opinion. Most likely, criticism will follow
Guantanamo Bay to its next home of record. While many claim detainee abuse and poor living conditions, the
fact is that these same people are going to believe these conditions will exist anywhere. Former Vice President
Cheney offered, “My own personal view is that those who are these figures may seem extraordinary, but the key
point is that it will probably cost this much or more to establish comparable new facilities in the U.S. to
accommodate the remaining detainees. In addition, what expense comes with transferring them to any of
these locations? Why spend this amount of money again, rather than keep the current facilities in operation?
It clearly does not pass the common sense test.
Counterplans
Reform
Reforming GITMO Solves
Changing the trial process solves-Aff unnecessary and unsafe
Hammel 10 (Tom, Associate Account Strategist at Google, Associate Account Executive at Yelp, Intern at U.S.
House of Representatives, Analyst, End-User Research at IT Brand Pulse, Product Manager at SCHAP, Associate
Editor at Atlas Omega Media, Opinion Editor at The Daily Aztec, Copy Editor at The Daily Aztec, Opinion
Columnist at The Daily Aztec, San Diego State University, “THE REALIST: Closing Guantanamo Bay impractical
for US safety,” The Daily Aztec., April 3, 2010, http://www.thedailyaztec.com/) SS
The plan to close the prison was impractical from the beginning. It was ultimately just another part of Obama’s elaborate campaign
rhetoric. Now, according to The New York Times, the Obama administration has no timetable for shutting it down and is still debating about “how broadly to define
absolutely senseless to get rid of a detention
facility for enemy combatants for the sole reason that it is a symbol of outdated policies. It is far too late to change the
the types of terrorism suspects who may be detained without trials as wartime prisoners.” It is
minds of the millions of Americans and abroad who continue to unconditionally criticize our nation for creating a two-front war in the Middle East to get retribution
on Al Qaeda and the Taliban for orchestrating the Sept. 11 attacks. This generational attitude was developed throughout the past nine years and it will endure far past
when the U.S. finally withdraws from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is obvious our
country needs a facility to hold enemy
combatants as long as we are in this war. By closing the facility to appease those fixated on the previous
administration, we would be forced to shift that financial and security burden to the states and would have to
hold terrorism detainees within our borders. For the past two months, American opinion in favor of this plan has corroded. On Jan. 22,
the day Guantanamo Bay was scheduled to close, 47 percent of the public favored keeping it. According to a
CNN poll released two months later, 60 percent of Americans favor continuing to operate the prison camps.
To follow through with this plan now would not only defy strategic and financial sensibility, it would defy the
opinions of the majority of the American public. Through decisive legal action, Obama is able to prove he is dedicated
to a new position toward war that could effectively deal with enemy captives while still respecting
international law. He could do this without shutting down Guantanamo Bay and instead simply changing the
trial process. According to an estimate released by The Pentagon in January, 20 percent of the 560 detainees released from Guantanamo Bay have returned to
the Middle East and rejoined terrorist organizations. This is unacceptable. We need to create an effective tribunal system that can prosecute Al Qaeda combatants and
affiliates for taking hostile action against the U.S. Conservatives argue for the use of military tribunals, but only three detainees have been sentenced through this
process. And these tribunals do not abide by recognized international law. In contrast, we have prosecuted
more than 400 terrorism detainees
in U.S. federal courts, granting suspected Al Qaeda insurgents more due process rights. We have granted all
but three terrorism detainees the rights of a U.S. civilian facing criminal charges during their trials
regardless of the fact that we captured them while fighting a war. The Obama administration needs to stop debating and decide who
can legally be considered an “enemy combatant” so it can take decisive action and solidify a legal standard for dealing with current detainees. This will allow us to
weigh the risk of releasing the remaining 183 in a single court system, provide them with a trial and more effectively ensure they will not return to the front line. All of
this should be done through a completely modified and restructured military tribunal court system built into the Guantanamo Bay facility. This will eliminate the cost
and security risk of transporting detainees into the country for trial in civilian courts in the U.S. Furthermore, Obama should alter this military court system to meet the
basic rights requirements of international law, such as withholding testimonies gathered during interrogations from court and informing detainees of the charges held
against them. Guantanamo
Bay should not be closed and only remembered as a symbol of unchecked presidential power. It is a facility
that can serve a greater purpose for our country than it has in the past.
Kritiks
Give the Land Back
Link
Link – Give Back the Land
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, “Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 104-105, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed
7/23/13) PE
Three omissions will serve to help us see the limits of Agamben’s vision, and why these limitations weaken the very
explanatory power of his analysis of even what he so insightfully describes. First, in neither Homo Sacer nor in State
of Exception is there any mention of Native Americans. This may seem either tangential or unfair as a complaint.
After all, Agamben is interested in today’s political repression and is European. There would seem to be no
particular reason for him to privilege, or even to be interested in the history of Native America. And perhaps it is
only my own background as an American that leads me to consider this relevant. But I think that neither Agamben’s
Italian nationality, nor my US nationality are important here. Homo Sacer is purported to be a concept that enables
us to grasp how and why some members of society, and by implication any of us, can be stripped of any legal
protection or community membership, and killed or subjected to any lesser punishment including torture, with
impunity. The Native American experience is, arguably, the paradigmatic case of entire populations being
dispossessed, killed with impunity, provided no protection legal or otherwise, or, as in the case of the Cherokee and
other southern nations, having the formal legal recognition by both the local states and the US Supreme Court,
superseded by executive power (by President Andrew Jackson to be precise). Granted, no book can cover every
relevant case and Agamben’s books discussed here are both short, if dense. But he does, in State of Exception go
over a very thorough history of states of emergency and the use of exceptional powers by governments all over the
world9. Tracing the roots of both states of exception and of the construction of homo sacer figures in liberal
democratic countries is a part of the exercise that Agamben is engaged in. Thus failing to even refer to Native
Americans is significant, both with reference to the historical period when “The only good Indian is a dead Indian”
was a practical guide to genocide that more closely approximates homo sacer historically than anything I can
imagine – and to the present day when many Native Americans would argue with reason that little has changed.
Case Frontlines
Inherency
Squo Solves
Obama pushing for Gitmo closure
WUSA, 13 (“President Obama Reiterates Need To Close Guantanamo Bay”, 2:25 PM, Apr 30, 2013, Online,
http://www.wusa9.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=257227, accessed 7/23/13) PE
President Obama said on Tuesday that his administration would reengage Congress on closing the U.S.
military run detention center at Guantanamo Bay. "It needs to be closed," Obama said at a White House news
conference. "I'm going to go back at this." Obama's comments come with reports that as many as 100 prisoners at
Guantanamo are in the midst of a hunger strike. Obama had vowed in his 2008 campaign to close Guantanamo,
but failed to get it done in his first term. "It' is not a surprise to me that we are having problems at Guantanamo."
Obama called Guantanamo unsafe, expensive, and said it lessens cooperation with U.S. allies. He noted that
Congress has legislatively blocked him from closing Guantanamo, but offered no solution to getting around that
hurdle. "I am going to go back at this," said Obama, "I am going to reengage with Congress that this is not in the
best interest of the American people." Obama said Guantanamo might have been seen as necessary after the Sept.
11 attacks, but the president says the time to close the prison for high-value terror suspects who were captured on
foreign soil is now. "This is a lingering problem that is not going to get better," Obama says. "It's going to get
worse." Obama also appeared to defend the Defense Department's decision to force feed the striking prisoners."I
don't want these individuals to die," he said.
No law stops Obama from closing Gitmo
Posner, 2013 (Eric Posner, Eric Posner, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is a co-author of The
Executive Unbound: After the Madisonian Republic and Climate Change Justice, “President Obama Can Shut
Guantanamo Whenever He Wants”, Slate, 5/2/13,
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/view_from_chicago/2013/05/president_obama_can_shut_guantana
mo_whenever_he_wants_to.html)
In his press conference Tuesday, President Obama repeated that he wanted to shut Guantanamo Bay but
blamed Congress for stopping him. “They would not let us close it,” he said. But that’s wrong. President Obama
can lawfully release the detainees if he wants to. Congress has made it difficult, but not impossible. Whatever he’s
saying, the president does not want to close the detention center—at least not yet. The relevant law is the National
Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (NDAA). This statute confirms the president’s power to wage war against alQaida and its associates, which was initially given to him in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF)
passed shortly after 9/11. The NDAA also authorizes the president to detain enemy combatants, and bans him from
transferring Guantanamo detainees to American soil. The NDAA does not, however, ban the president from
releasing detainees. Section 1028 authorizes him to release them to foreign countries that will accept them—
the problem is that most countries won’t, and others, like Yemen, where about 90 of the 166 detainees are from,
can’t guarantee that they will maintain control over detainees, as required by the law. There is another section of the
NDAA, however, which has been overlooked. In section 1021(a), Congress “affirms” the authority of the U.S.
armed forces under the AUMF to detain members of al-Qaida and affiliated groups “pending disposition under the
law of war.” Section 1021(c)(1) further provides that “disposition under the law of war” includes “Detention
under the law of war without trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by” the AUMF. Thus, when
hostilities end, the detainees may be released.
The president has the power to end the hostilities with al-Qaida—simply by declaring their end. This is not a
controversial sort of power. Numerous presidents have ended hostilities without any legislative action from
Congress—this happened with the Vietnam War, the Korean War, World War II, and World War I. The
Supreme Court has confirmed that the president has this authority.
Obama pushing to close Gitmo
Dougherty, 2013 (Jill Dougherty, the foreign affairs correspondent for CNN. Based in the network’s Washington,
D.C., bureau, Dougherty covers U.S. foreign policy. In addition to reporting on news developments from the State
Department, she provides analysis on international issues across multiple CNN platforms and has traveled widely
with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Europe, Asia and the Middle East. She has reported from more than 50
countries, including Afghanistan, Iraq and North Korea, “Obama to name D.C. lawyer to lead Guantanamo Bay
closure”, CNN, 6/17/13, http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/06/17/obama-to-name-d-c-lawyer-to-leadguantanamo-bay-closure/)
(CNN) – President Barack Obama will appoint Washington, D.C. lawyer Clifford Sloan to re-open the State
Department's Office of Guantanamo Closure, according to a senior administration official. The administration’s
efforts to shut down the detention facility have been stalled since January, when the State Department
shuttered the office tasked with handling the closure, and reassigned its special envoy. A formal announcement
is expected Monday. Obama said in a national security speech last month that detention facility puts U.S. interests
at risk, saying some allies are reluctant to cooperate on investigations with the United States if a suspect
might land at the controversial detention center "The original premise for opening Gitmo - that detainees
would not be able to challenge their detention - was found unconstitutional five years ago," he said. "In the
meantime, Gitmo has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." That's not to
mention the economic implications, the president said. The country spends $150 million annually to imprison
166 suspects, and the Defense Department estimates that keeping Gitmo open may cost another $200 million
"at a time when we are cutting investments in education and research here at home," he said. Explaining that no
prisoner has ever escaped a supermax or military facility - and noting U.S. courts have had no issue
prosecuting terrorists, some more dangerous than those at Guantanamo - Obama said he would push again to
close the detention center and appoint State and Defense department envoys to make sure the detainees are
transferred to other countries.
Biopower Advantage
Closing Fails
No solvency – even after released from Gitmo, people are still reduced to bare life – we’re
cogs in a machine
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, “Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 107-108, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed
7/23/13) PE
Finally, Agamben, in his understanding of homo sacer seems to miss the most obvious point imaginable, at least to
anyone familiar with the work of either Karl Marx or Karl Polanyi11, namely, that a human being reduced to bare
life, to the mere physical existence without rights or guarantees, far from being a marginal figure, a canary in a coal
mine, is instead the human condition of the majority of the population under capitalism. Here is where it is clear
why I have stressed the autonomy of the political as a way of understanding the world that is counter-productive: it
takes work to describe humanity reduced to bare life and then fail to see it all around one in the form of the
proletarian majority of every society, North and South. Political deracination is clearly related to economic
deracination, or to use the, in my view clearer Marxian terminology, expropriation and enclosure, or
proletarianization. In what way is Agamben’s homo sacer any different than the “rightless and free” proletarian
that has always existed under capitalism? Hasn’t it always been allowable to “live and let die” without remorse those
unable to make a living, keep a job or income, provide for themselves or family members, keep up rent or mortgage
payments, pay for a meal? Shouldn’t we see this as violence, as Zizek in his book Violence12 argues, the daily,
systemic “economic” violence of market relations and the propertylessness of the majority in capitalist society? Isn’t
this exactly the non-state of emergency, non-exceptional violence, that kills millions annually, that Agamben, like
Arendt before him, ignores? Further, doesn’t his lack of attention to the “normal” process of proletarianization, of
expropriation and enclosure, lead to his failure to see these on a grand scale with the maximum possible state
violence in the colonial world, in the neocolonial world, in slavery and the slave trade, in the genocide of the Native
Americans?
GITMO Not Key
No solvency – Gitmo isn’t key – Agamben ignores too much historical oppression
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, “Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 106, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13)
PE
The second omission, more difficult to explain by Agamben’s geographical origins, is any reference at all to the
history of colonialism, or to conditions in the ex-colonial world of the Global South. Arendt, despite numerous
failings of analysis and history some of which I discuss below, nevertheless to her credit makes the relationship
between imperialism and racism in the colonies and “totalitarianism” in Europe a central part of her analysis in the
Origins of Totalitarianism10. Yet there is no discussion of this relationship in Agamben. In this sense, Agamben
represents an analytical step backwards from Arendt, not a further development of her insights. The rest of the
world has dropped off the mental map. This is not just a question of priorities, of the brevity of books that can’t
cover everything, nor even of Eurocentrism though it certainly is in part that. It is rather a serious failure of
analysis and historical imagination that, as we will see below, makes Agamben’s theoretical discussion less
useful and reduces dramatically its explanatory power. For many decades, in country after country, continent after
continent, European and other colonial powers could act with impunity and without regard to the life of, let alone
legally recognized rights of the colonized people. The Belgian Congo, and the horrors of slavery; the repeated
experience of mass famine in India (done away with since Independence and the establishment of democratic
government); the labeling of resistance against expropriation and foreign rule Mau Mau to define it as an atavistic
throwback to savagery to enable the British rulers to destroy it militarily; over a million dead in the Algerian
struggle for Independence against the French; the near-genocide in Libya by the Italians, the list could go on for
pages. None of it relevant, presumably, either to states of exception, in which sovereigns are unconstrained by
any legal or customary limit in their actions, nor in understanding the reduction of person from members of
communities with either customary or legal rights to bare life, dependent on the self-restraint at whim of others for
their survival.
Alt Causes to State of Exception
No solvency – sovereignty means the state of exception is inevitable
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, “Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 99, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed 7/23/13)
PE
“The Sovereign” wrote Nazi lawyer and political theorist Carl Schmitt, “is he who decides on a state of exception2”.
The state of exception, or state of emergency, is that moment in which all constitutional and legal limits can be
superseded or done away with, annulled or set aside, ultimately at the whim or dictate of the sovereign. The
latter’s power in any case was never really limited by these legal restraints, even if this sovereign for their own
reasons abided by such formal limits for a time. In this case Schmitt’s sovereign is Hobbes’ Leviathan on steroids,
though the line of ancestry is clear, since once sovereignty is given over by people in a state of Hobbesian nature
(where a war of all against all predominates and life is nasty, brutish and short) Hobbes’ Leviathan state power
likewise has no limits or legal restraints other than those that it sees fit to impose. Further, the state of exception
is the basis of all law in the first place, in that it is only under conditions of a state of exception that law itself can be
created and constitutions imposed. In other words, law is not a product of law, for either Schmitt or for Hobbes,
but of a state where there is not law. The difference is important however. For Hobbes it is the lawless state –
presumably a one-time affair at least ontologically if not historically – that leads to the creation of law which is the
product of the sovereign. For Schmitt, that power is always in a position to set aside all law and create new law.
But creating new law is by definition an exceptional moment, one that is an exercise of power and that steps over the
bounds of all previously existing (and by implication illusory) legal limits.
No solvency – too many alt causes to the state of exception – anything that expropriates
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, “Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 110-111, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed
7/23/13) PE
My argument is that states of exception and the reduction of part or all of the population governed by state power
to bare life are based upon attempts to expropriate all or part of a population from their land, their access to
resources, subsistence and the means of production; or upon the imposition of neoliberal policies accomplishing
analogous acts of primitive accumulation (privatization of resources or public goods, elimination of limits on
exploitation and market forces, freeing of the power of employers over workers, freeing of capital from regulations
or limitations on its actions and movements). The case of Nazi Germany, the paradigmatic case for Agamben and
one of the paradigmatic cases for Arendt’s study of totalitarianism, far from making the argument for autonomy of
the political, instead supports the argument that political repression is based on economic expropriation and
exploitation, and that rights and liberties, in turn are based on economic democracy, on either widespread or
common ownership of resources, or on economic class organization by workers and the gains made using
democracy to sustain economic conditions.
Turn GITMO Focus Bad
Turn – their focus on states of exception in Gitmo is a critical misreading – we lose political
willpower to solve other instances of domination
Huysmans, 8 (Jef, Professor of Security Studies (Politics & International Studies) in the Faculty of Social
Sciences at the University of Kent, “The Jargon of Exception—On Schmitt, Agamben and the Absence of Political
Society,” International Political Sociology (2008) 2, 165–183, Online,
http://bigo.zgeist.org/students/readings/huysmansjargonexceptionIPS.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism
soak up critical energies with considerable effect in liberal societies. ‘‘[I]t is the exception that rings liberal alarm
bells’’ (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms
of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and ⁄ or the direct
exercise of governing power over biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a
development but does not develop why we should take exception to exceptionalism. This article introduces one of
the main reasons for sending out a distress signal about the rise in the idiom of exception. When exceptionalism
soaks up critical energ[y]ies in liberal societies, it risks suppressing a political reading of the societal. By
reading the concept of exception through two of the most ‘‘popular’’ political theorists of the exception, Schmitt
and Agamben, the article shows that structuring politics around exceptionalist readings of political power tends to
politically neutralize the societal as a realm of multi-faceted, historically structured political mediations and
mobilizations. Or, in other words, deploying the exception as a diagram of the political marginalizes the societal as
a political realm. In doing so, it eliminates one of the constituting categories of modern politics (Balibar 1997;
Dyzenhaus 1997), hence producing an impoverished and ultimately illusionary understanding of the processes
of political contestation and domination (Neal 2006; Neocleous 2006). Fleur Johns observed in her analysis of
Guantanamo Bay that events taking on the affect of exceptionalism soak up critical energies with considerable
effect in liberal societies. ‘‘[I]t is the exception that rings liberal alarm bells’’ (Johns 2005). The liberal critique of
current policy developments tends to define stakes and solutions in terms of exceptionalism, that is, a conflict
between rule of law and executive, arbitrary government and ⁄ or the direct exercise of governing power over
biologically, in contrast to politically, defined life. Johns is uneasy about such a development but does not develop
why we should take exception to exceptionalism.
No spillover solvency – Agamben’s theories don’t answer key questions – solving just in the
instance of Gitmo doesn’t give us tools to solve the harms elsewhere
Colatrella, 11 (Steven, taught at Bard College, the New School and the American University of Rome, Fulbright
scholar, Chair of the Department of Political and Social Sciences at John Cabot University in Rome and President of
the Iowa Sociological Association, “Nothing Exceptional: Against Agamben,” Journal for Critical Education Policy
Studies, vol.9. no.1, page 102-103, November 2011, Online, http://www.jceps.com/PDFs/09-1-05.pdf, accessed
7/23/13) PE
Agamben therefore seeks to explain the present danger to civil liberties, the risk of special powers being taken
over by governments declaring states of emergency, the increasingly common turn to “delegated democracy”
through authoritarian methods by only formally elected leaders and the risk of physical repression by state
power even in liberal democratic countries. Despite its insight, however, I think that this way of understanding is
disastrously mistaken. For the test of theories of this sort should be simple and twofold: 1) does the theory tell us
why this is happening when it does and where it does? 2) And does it tell us what to do about it? I think
Agamben’s analysis fails utterly on both counts and therein lies the danger in its growing influence as a way of
understanding the undoubted rise in political repression and authoritarianism around the world. Part of the appeal of
a theory like Agamben’s to radical intellectuals is its sophistication. That Agemben is erudite is undoubted, as his
extensive knowledge of arcane facts of Roman legal history indicate. But while he has added dimensions that no less
talented thinker, certainly myself included, could have come up with, originality, despite its undoubted academic
virtues, is not a reason for a theory or explanation to be convincing to others. Rather an explanation of historical or
political phenomena must address the first question I pose: why? Why now and not later or before? Why in this
place and not the other? Why the differences in degree between places or times? Why is this group under
attack and not another one?
A2: Biopower Impact
Their Impacts rely on a flawed, totalizing amount of biopower
Dickinson 2004 (Edward Ross, University of Cincinnati, Central European History, v37, n1, p.34-36)
The need to theorize the place of the democratic welfare state in biopolitical, social-engineering modernity is, however, obvious. This is a
state form that - in local variations - was built in the course of the 1950s and 1960s in almost every European country in
which people had meaningful political choices, virtually regardless of which political party was in government, and has
survived~ever since without a single major political upheaval, and certainly without significant episodes of
internal violence. (The only modern regime form that comes remotely close - and not very close, for that matter - to this record is the liberal
parliamentary regime form installed in much of Europe in the last third of the nineteenth century.) The German case offers perhaps the most
extraordinary example of the almost monolithic stability of this political system. It hardly needs to be said that the Third Reich, in
contrast, survived for twelve years, and was effectively dead after eight. I want to stress that my point here is not that the
democratic welfare state is a "good" thing. There is plenty about it that is reprehensible and frightening. It does wonderful things - the things it
was built to do - for people; but it also coerces, cajoles, massages, and incentivizes its citizens into behaving in certain ways. It "engineers" their
lives, so to speak. It aims at achieving national power (now more often defined in economic rather than military terms, a discourse on skilled
labor rather than on cannonfodder); it pathologizes difference; it disciplines the individual in myriad ways; it is driven by a "scientistic" and
medicalizing approach to social problems; it is a creature of instrumental rationality. And it is, of course, embedded in a broader discursive
complex (institutions, professions, fields of social, medical, and psychological expertise) that pursues these same aims in often even more
effective and inescapable ways.89 In short, the continuities between early twentieth-century biopolitical discourse and
the practices of the welfare state in our own time are unmistakeable. Both are instances of the "disciplinary
society" and of biopolitical, regulatory, social-engineering modernity, and they share that genealogy with more author- - itarian
states, including the National Socialist state, but also fascist Italy, for example. And it is certainly fruitful to view them from this very broad perspective. But that analysis can easily become superficial and misleading because it obfuscates the profoundly
different strategic and local dynamics of power in the two kinds of regimes. Clearly the democratic welfare
state is ot only formally but also substantively quite different from totalitarianism. Above all, again, it has
nowhere developed the fateful, radicalizing dynamic that characterized National Socialism (or for that matter
Stalinism), the psychotic logic that leads from economistic population management to mass murder. Again,
there is always the potential for such a discursive regime to generate coercive policies. In those cases in which the regime of
rights does not successfully produce "health," such a system can -and historically does – create compulsory pro- grams to enforce it. But
again, there are political and policy potentials and con- straints such as structuring of biopolitics that are very
different from those of National Socialist Germany. Democratic biopolitical regimes require, enable, and
incite a degree of self-direction and participation that is functionally incompatible with authoritarian or
totalitarian structures. And this pursuit of biopolitical ends through a regime of democratic citizenship does appear, historically, to have imposed narrow limits on coercive policies, and to have generated a "1ogic"or
imperative'of increasing liberalization. Despite lim- itations imposed by political context and the slow pace of discursive change, I
think this is the unmistakable message of the really very impressive waves of legi slative and welfare reforms in the 1920s or the 1970s in
Germany.90 Of course it is not yet clear whether this is an irreversible dynamic of such systems. Nevertheless, such regimes are
characterized by sufficient degrees of autonomv, (.and of the potential for its expansion) for sufficient numbers of
people that I think it becomes useful to conceive of the mass productive of a strate- gic configuration of power
relations that might fruitfully be analyzed as a condition of "liberty” just as much as they are productive of
constraint, oppression, or manipulation. At the very least, totalitarianism cannot be the sole orientation point for our understanding
of biopolitics, the only end point of the logic of social engineering 34-36
Biopower doesn’t culminate in genocide
Ojakangas 2005 (Mika, Helsinki Collegium for Advanced Studies, Finland, FOUCAULT STUDIES, May, v2,
p.26-27)
For Foucault, the coexistence in political structures of large destructive mechanisms and institutions oriented toward the care of individual life
was something puzzling: "It is one of the central antinomies of our political reason." However, it was an antinomy precisely because in principle
the sovereign power and bio-power are mutually exclusive. How is it possible that the care of individual life paves the way for mass slaughters?
Although Foucault could never give a satisfactory answer to this question, he was convinced that ma ss slaughters are not the effect or
the logical conclusion of bio-political rationality. 1 am also convinced about that. To be sure, it can be argued that sovereign
power and bio-power are reconciled within the modern state, which legitimates killing by biopolitical arguments. Especially, it can be argued that
these powers are reconciled in the Third Reich in which they seemed to "coincide exactly". To my mind, however, neither the modern
state nor the Third Reich - in which the monstrosity of the modem state is crystallized - are the syntheses of the sovereign
power and biopower. but, rather the institutional loci of their irreconcilable tension. This is, I believe, what Foucault
meant when he wrote about their "demonic combination". In fact, the history of modern Western societies would be quite
incomprehensible without taking into account that there exists a form of power which refrains from killing
but which nevertheless is capable of directing people’s lives. The effectiveness of biopower can be seen lying precisely in that
it refrains and withdraws before every demand of killing, even though these demands would derive from the demand of justice. In biopolitical
societies, according to Foucault, capital punishment could not be maintained except by invoking less the enormity of the crime itself than the
monstrosity of the criminal: "One had the right to kill those who represented a kind of biological danger to others." However, given that the "right
to kill" is precisely a sovereign right, it can be argued that the biopolitical societies analyzed by Foucault were not entirely biopolitical. Perhaps,
there neither has been nor can be a society that is entirely biopolitical. Nevertheless, the fact is that present-dav European societies
have abolished capital punishment. In them, there are no longer exceptions. It is the very “right to kill" that has been
called into question. However, it is not called into question because of enlightened moral sentiments, but rather because
of the deplovment of bio-political thinking and practice.
A2: State of Exception Answers
Their state of exception impacts are totalizing and wrong
Neilson 2004 (Brett, University of Western Sydney, "Potenza Nuda? Sovereignty, Biopolitics, Capitalism,"
Contretemps, December 5, p. 70)
Negri's ruse in this review is to suggest that the permanent state of exception specified by the first Agamben describes the new condition of
global Empire. But he counters Agamben on his own terms, charging that it is inaccurate to fix everything that happens, in
the world today "onto a static and totalitarian horizon, as under Nazism." Such an equation, for Negri, is
anachronistic and inaccurate, since it conflates the fascist rule of the twentieth century with contemporary modes of
decentralized global control. With implicit reference to the first chapter of Stato di Eccezione, where Agamben describes the current
world situation as 'global civil war' (a term initially used by both Carl Schmitt and Hannah Arendt), Negri questions the notion of a sovereign
ban that renders constituent and constituted power indistinct: But things are different-if we live in a state of exception it is
because we live through a ferocious and permanent "civil war," where the positive and negative their
antagonistic power can in no way be flattened onto indifference.
Claims of a permanent state of exception undermine criticism of biopower
Andrew 2005 (Neal, PhD candidate, School of Politics, Philosophy and International Relations at Keele
University, "Review of the literature on the ccstate of exception)) and the application of this
concept to contemporary politics," March 3, htb:llwww.libertvsecuritv.org/articlel69.htmI)
«If, as has been suggested, terminology is the properly poetic moment of thought, then terminological choices can
never be neutral. In this sense, the choice of the term state of exception implies a position taken on both the nature of
the phenomenon we seek to investigate and the logic most useful for understanding it.» [51]
There is a final criticism to be made about Agamben’s treatment of the idea of the state of exception. Thus far, we have made a sustained
critical-theoretical investigation into the usefulness and insight of that concept. In this sense, we must agree with Agamben’s suggestion
that the choice of a term implies a position on the nature of the phenomenon and the logic most useful for
understanding it. The state of exception is, therefore, a way of understanding both the operation of canonical Western political
discourses/structures at their limits and a positioning of contemporary political practices at those limits. As well as capturing the logic of
a political phenomenon, the term ‘state of exception’ implies a political judgement on contemporary political practices - that they are
exceptional and therefore perhaps bad, wrong, or more likely interesting, revealing and symptomatic. For these same reasons, however,
we find that the usefulness and insight of the concept of the ‘state of exception’ is undermined by Agamben’s frequent invocation of the
idea of a permanent state of exception. For the most part, the logical operation the term ‘state of exception’ is taken to mean a limit
condition, a constitutive threshold that dwells within the city as sovereign potentiality. It is the potential for sovereignty to make itself
actual by withdrawing the protection of the law, abandoning the subject to a state of lawlessness and violence: «the sovereign is the one
with respect to whom all men are potentially homines sacri, and homo sacer is the one with respect to whom all men act as sovereigns.»
[52] The value of Agamben’s work resides in a sustained investigation into the political dialectics in
operation at the thresholds of law and politically-qualified life. Yet the analytical and political value of this
very timely logic is undermined by the invocation of a permanent state of exception . For example, in Homo Sacer:
«the «juridically empty» space of the state of exception...has transgressed its spatiotemporal boundaries and now, overflowing outside
them, is starting to coincide with the normal order, in which everything again becomes possible.» [53] And similarly in State of
Exception: «the state of exception has by now become the rule.» [54] These statements do not fit with the complex logic of relationality
that Agamben attributes to sovereignty and the state of exception . To invoke a permanent state of exception is to
collapse the relational dialectic of norm/exception. Although in Homo Sacerthese comments are somewhat throwaway,
in State of Exception Agamben weaves this thesis more fully into his analysis. This is in fact grounded both theoretically and
empirically. As such, Agamben invokes Benjamin’s eighth thesis from his Theses on the Philosophy of History, which partly reads,
«[t]he tradition of the oppressed teaches us that the ‘state of exception’ in which we live is the rule. We must attain to a concept of
history that accords with this fact. Then we will clearly see that it is our task to bring about the real state of exception, and this will
improve our position in the struggle against fascism.» [55] The ‘real’ state of exception of which Benjamin speaks is some kind of
revolution, post-dialectical epoch, or new messianic age. In historical terms Benjamin is of course right that fascism existed under the
permanent declaration of a state of exception. In addition to this theoretical invocation, Agamben provides an extended note on the
empirical history of the state of exception. In this, he illustrates that the exceptional delegation of powers from parliament to the
executive - establishing executive rule by decree - became normal practice for all European democracies during, and then frequently
after, the First World War. He argues that the passage to executive rule is underway to varying degrees in all the Western democracies,
with parliaments becoming only secondary actors in the legislative process. Even more pertinently, he maintains that the «tendency in all
of the Western democracies,» is that «the declaration of the state of exception has gradually been replaced by an unprecedented
generalization of the paradigm of security as the normal technique of government.» [56] While we have no quibble with Agamben’s
historical details or interpretation, what he is really saying here is that the current norm was once exceptional, and that it developed from
an earlier state of exception or is coming to resemble what was once considered exceptional. It may also be that today’s exception will
become tomorrow’s norm. These are no doubt acute political problems and may well be the case historically, but the consequence
is that the treatise becomes no longer an enquiry into the state of exception, but an enquiry into the
state of the norm. It also implies a political position on the current norm, in that it attempts to label it as exceptional.
CMR Advantage
CMR High
Non-UQ – CMR high and stable – recent confirmation
Feaver, 7/18 (Peter, American professor of political science and public policy at Duke University. He is a
leading scholar in civil-military relations, “Grill, Then Confirm General Dempsey,” Foreign Policy, Thursday, July
18, 2013, Online, http://shadow.foreignpolicy.com/blog/2195, accessed 7/23/13) PE
From the point of view of American civil-military relations, today's confirmation hearing for Gen. Martin
Dempsey, whom President Barack Obama nominated for a customary second tour as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is the second-most
important hearing of the year. The first was Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel's confirmation hearing earlier in the year. Hagel's hearing was
a train wreck, but he won grudging confirmation. I hope and expect Dempsey's to go much more smoothly, and I hope and
expect him to win an even more enthusiastic affirmative vote. Hagel has performed better than his dismal performance in the confirmation
hearing would have predicted. While I thought at the time that there were better choices for secretary of defense, I also thought that there was not
a strong enough case against him to overcome the presumption that elections have consequences and one of them is that presidents should get the
appointees they want. The confirmation hearings should not be a rubber stamp, and it is always possible that the vetting process was inadequate.
However, the burden of proof should be on those seeking to reject, rather than on the president. The case for Dempsey strikes me as much
stronger than was the case for Hagel, notwithstanding the sharp critiques from my friend and Shadow Government colleague Kori Schake (who
has made her skepticism plain here, here, and here). By all means, I hope the Senate uses the confirmation hearing to raise the tough questions
that deserve to be asked of the administration's national security policy, which, as I argued before, appears to be in free-fall. However, it is
obvious that these problems derive from decisions above Dempsey's pay grade and that those elected and appointed officials responsible at 1600
Pennsylvania Ave. do not appear before confirmation hearings, or any oversight hearings. So this is the moment to ask those questions of an
administration official obliged to answer them. It is also fair game to ask Dempsey the tough questions that belong at his level:
How does he explain the evolution in his advice on Syria? Why does he believe that the United States has established credible coercive
diplomacy vis-à-vis Iran? What will he recommend if, as seems probable, the sequester will not be fixed? And so on. Dempsey must provide
compelling accounts of the many issues he will manage if he is confirmed to a second tour, ranging from sexual harassment policy to pay and
compensation to rebalancing the force as it returns from war to barracks. But I think he deserves that second tour. I admit to a certain bias here
because Dempsey cares deeply about an issue that I think is vitally important: the health of civil-military relations. (Yes, I
acknowledge another possible conflict of interest: Dempsey is a Duke alum with a graduate degree in English, which speaks well of his breadth
of education. I also taught his son in class.) Dempsey has made educating the force about the do's and don'ts of healthy civil-military relations a
high priority in his first term. In this regard, he was responding to the same warning signs that motivated his
predecessor, Adm. Mike Mullen, and his earlier boss, Defense Secretary Robert Gates, to likewise make civil-military relations a
point of emphasis. Dempsey has spoken out persuasively about the dangers of senior retired military getting involved in high-stakes
partisan politics, and he has spoken compellingly about the need for better communication between civilian and military institutions. Both
civilians and the military share responsibility for preserving healthy civil-military relations, but it is simply a fact that
civilian political leaders are too distracted to pay the matter adequate attention, and the rest of civilian society is even more inclined to ignore the
relationship. If military leaders do not make it a priority, no one in positions of influence will. Dempsey understands this
fundamentally important fact, and for that reason -- and barring a black-swan surprise revelation in the hearings -- he deserves to be questioned
closely and then confirmed.
Civil Military relations is not in crisis
Exum 12 (Andrew is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and teaches a course in lowintensity conflict at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. He holds a doctorate in war
studies from the University of London. “Abu Muqawama: No Crisis in Wartime U.S. Civil-Military Relations”
World Politics Review 04 Jul 2012 http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/12126/abu-muqawama-no-crisisin-wartime-u-s-civil-military-relations)
As Eliot Cohen ably demonstrates in “Supreme Command” (2002), however, civilians do sometimes stick their
noses into the tactical and operational affairs of the military -- and often to positive effect. Choosing historical
examples ranging from Abraham Lincoln to David Ben-Gurion, Cohen demonstrates why it is sometimes necessary
for politicians to get their hands dirty running a war. After all, war is fundamentally a political affair -- and it
really is sometimes too important to be left to the generals. A statesman who ignores military affairs can be as much
of a menace as a statesman who fancies himself a better tactician than his generals. ¶ U.S. military officers, as a
whole, dislike Cohen's arguments for reasons that should be obvious to all. These officers reflexively resent what
they see as "interference" in their affairs. What those officers perhaps miss is that among Cohen's intended audience
was a certain former governor of Texas who Cohen feared was not as interested in military affairs as he needed to be
having become president. Indeed, George W. Bush learned the hard way -- and at the cost of much U.S. blood and
treasure -- that even though the U.S. military will insist as an institution that its general officers are equally able, that
is not always the case. Some officers are better than others, and one of the more important decisions a president can
make is in his selection of commander.¶ To the chagrin of military officers, then, the division of labor between
civilian officials and military officers in wartime is not fixed. Civilians have long reserved the right to interfere
in military affairs. Lincoln and Ben-Gurion did this to positive effect. Adolf Hitler, among others, did so in such a
way that his meddling hamstrung his generals.¶ What is rigidly fixed in the U.S. system of government, however,
is civilian supremacy over the military. Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the U.S. Congress the sole right to
declare war, while Article II establishes the president as the commander-in-chief. Remarkably, the civilian
leadership of the United States has never faced a serious threat by the military to usurp powers reserved for
civilian authorities. Only MacArthur mounted a serious challenge -- a series of challenges, really -- to civilian
authorities, and even he was eventually put in his place.¶ Those who fear that civil-military relations in the
United States are in crisis -- and these fears reached an apex in 2009 -- lack both comparative and historical
perspective. The 82nd Airborne Division might not have done the best job in Iraq’s al-Anbar province in 2003, but
unlike its French counterparts, it has never threatened to jump onto the Washington mall and overthrow the
government. And despite the fears of many pundits in 2009 that high-profile general officers such as David
Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal harbored secret ambitions to undermine a young Democratic president, both men
now happily and humbly serve as civilians in that same president's administration.
Alt Causes
Can’t solve – barriers to CMR – narrow recruitment
Cohen, 97 (Eliot A., Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, “CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS”, Orbis, Spring 1997, page 86, Online,
https://www.fpri.org/americavulnerable/06.CivilMilitaryRelations.Cohen.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE
The gap between the military and society is exacerbated by the military’s increasing tendency to recruit from
narrower segments of the population. One conference participant reported that some 25 percent of new entrants
into the military now come from military families. Of greater concern, in the view of some, is the increased role
of the military academies as providers of officer candidates. Whereas West Point, Annapolis, and the Air Force
Academy produced only 10 percent of new officers during the Cold War, today they produce roughly onequarter. In the view of many, the services would be happy not only to restrict as much officer intake as possible to
the service academies but to force new officers to serve for extended periods of time. The demands of efficiency, in
particular the desire to reduce training expenses and turnover, lead the military to press for long-term service
contracts.
Can’t solve – barriers to CMR – the military thinks it’s better than us
Cohen, 97 (Eliot A., Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, “CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS”, Orbis, Spring 1997, page 86-87, Online,
https://www.fpri.org/americavulnerable/06.CivilMilitaryRelations.Cohen.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE
Increasingly, some military leaders also see a growing gap between military and societal values. The U.S.
Marine Corps, perhaps the least civilianized of all the armed services, has changed its basic training programs to
instill values in recruits that it believes American society has failed to provide. Military leaders routinely
remark, with more than a little complacency, that the military has coped with problems that still bedevil the
rest of American society: drug and alcohol abuse, and even in large measure race relations. As sociologist
Charles Moskos has put it, the army is the only institution in which black men routinely give white men orders and
no one thinks twice about it. The army’s success on issues involving the sexes is less clear. The military has
struggled, with varying success, to open to women careers that traditionally embodied masculine qualities. Still, that
the military has come to see itself as an organization with better values and more functional social behavior
than civil society marks yet another departure from the past, when the armed forces saw themselves more as a
reflection of society and less as its superior.
Knowledge Inaccurate
We don’t have the knowledge to make true predictions of CMR
Angstrom 13
Jan is the Director of Conflict Studies at Uppsala University with a PhD from King’s College, London “The
changing norms of civil and military and civil-military relations theory” Department of Peace and Conflict Research
at Uppsala University , 30 Apr 2013 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/09592318.2013.778014, SM
Despite its obvious importance, there are several shortcomings in our knowledge of how civil and military are
constituted and relate to each other. Far too often relations between civil and military are treated by scholars as
well as policymakers as a technical matter of more or less coordination. Instead, it relates to fundamental
political norms of how societies should be organized. Similarly, the recent literature on security sector reform far
too often treats democratic control of the military as a binary dichotomy (either there is control or there isn’t), thus
failing to recognize the great diversity of democratic orders. Furthermore, the study of civil –military relations has,
with few exceptions,5 been dominated by case studies of the contemporary US, Great Britain, or – after the Cold
War – post-Communist states in Eastern Europe.6 The selection of empirical cases is thus quite limited. Surely, if
for example Peter Feaver is right in suggesting that civil –military relations has been an issue since Antiquity, we
should be able to include a wider range of cases in our studies.7 Similarly, the way we currently understand the
distinction of civil and military in the West is often taken for granted and assumed to be of universal validity.
The latter tendency is abundant in the burgeoning literature on civil victimization in war. Modern strategic thought,
moreover, seems not only to think of civil and military as important, but also presumes the existence of such
categories and the boundaries between them. What if civil and military can be understood differently? An empirical
strategy to research civil –military relations, however, is hampered by the lack of categorizations that cover the
full width of diversity of potential civil –military relations. Instead, the typical theories of civil –military relations
focus on the more narrow control of the military and devise different strategies and theories for this control.10
Not even huge data gathering programs on democracy such as POLITY include measures for civil –military
relations.
Military Effectiveness Inevitable
Expert says CMR can never have an impact
Betts 07
Richard K. is the Arnold Saltzman Professor of War and Peace Studies in the Department of Political Science, the
director of the Institute of War and Peace Studies, and the director of the International Security Policy Program in
the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. He is a senior fellow at the Council on
Foreign Relations. He received his AB, AM, and PhD in government from Harvard University. He has also served
on the Harvard faculty as lecturer in government “ARE AMERICAN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS STILL A
PROBLEM?” Saltzman Working Paper No. 1 September 2007
The main critique of objective control barely mentions this, the alternative that Huntington poses, ¶ and does not
fully engage what Huntington meant. For example, Cohen quotes Huntington's line that in ¶ World War II, " 'So far
as the major decisions in policy and strategy were concerned, the military ran the ¶ war,' " but adds mistakenly, "And
a good thing too, he seems to add." Looking at the page in The Soldier ¶ and the State where the quoted line appears,
one actually finds it followed by Huntington's lament that the ¶ military accomplished this dominance through
fusion, "only by sacrificing their military outlook" and ¶ becoming one with the liberal society, with bad
effects on the peace that followed the war.49¶ How should the dialogue be made equal? Clausewitz
recommended that the top commander be in ¶ the cabinet, to ensure that policymakers understood the limitations of
military options and the ramifications ¶ of their choices at each point.50 U.S. practice does not go that far; the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ¶ is a statutory advisor, but not an official member, of the National
Security Council. This is good enough, as ¶ long as he and the chiefs are as free as the regular members to
discuss their views. It is also only realistic ¶ to expect presidents to pay some attention to whether top military
appointees have views that are minimally ¶ compatible with their own aims. Having Curtis LeMay as a member of
the JCS under Kennedy and ¶ Johnson served no one's interests. But this does not mean looking for clones, and it
means exerting close ¶ control of military appointments at the four-star, or occasionally the three-star, level – not the
vetting of all ¶ general officer promotions, as Rumsfeld was said to do. ¶ 49 Cohen, Supreme Command, p. 229;
Huntington, Soldier and the State, pp. 315-317. ¶ 50 As the editors clarify, "Clausewitz emphasizes the cabinet's
participation in military decisions, not the soldier's ¶ participation in political decisions." Carl von Clausewitz, On
War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans. ¶ (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976), p. 608 and
608n1. ¶ 3738¶ A better way to balance the equation is desirable, but probably not achievable. The principle ¶
endorsed by Cohen – the "unequal dialogue" – is not literally apt. Inequality of authority between civilian ¶ and
military executives is as it should be, and if checks on executive authority are a problem, blame the ¶ Founders. But
the proper inequality of authority makes it all the more important for the dialogue between the camps to be
equal. Subjective control that keeps bruising dialogue limited to the bureaucratic level ¶ within the Defense
Department, by appointing accommodating officers at the top has not served the ¶ functional imperative. Equality in
strategic discussion does not compromise the civilians' ultimate primacy. ¶ Presidents have the right to be wrong in
the end, but generals should have every chance to prevent error ¶ before they get to the end. ¶ In The Soldier and the
State Huntington posed two stark ideal types of civilian control, and ¶ endorses one. In The Common Defense, which
covered a much broader set of problems, he presented a ¶ more complex and richer set of ways to understand
military policy. That second book made clear that the ¶ genius of the American system was not its consistent
adherence to singular courses of action, but its robust ¶ ways of muddling through, thereby implying how civilmilitary relations might work satisfactorily without ¶ always embodying the pure form of objective control. He ends
The Common Defense by describing Fisher ¶ Ames' 1795 address in the House of Representatives: ¶ A monarchy or
despotism, Ames suggested, is like a full-rigged sailing ship. It moves swiftly and ¶ efficiently. It is beautiful to
behold. It responds sharply to the helm. But in troubled waters, when it ¶ strikes a rock, its shell is pierced, and it
quickly sinks to the bottom. A republic, however, is like a ¶ raft: slow, ungainly, impossible to steer, no place from
which to control events, and yet endurable ¶ and safe. It will not sink, but one's feet are always wet.51¶ In American
civil-military relations the water never gets chin-deep. In the worst of times it splashes up ¶ toward knee level.
Our feet are always wet, but the water rarely gets above our ankles.
Studies prove – CMR has no correlation to effectiveness
Murdie 11
Amanda Ph.D. Kansas State University Department of Political Science
“The Bad, the Good, and the Ugly: The Curvilinear Effects of Civil-Military Conflict on International Crisis
Outcome” KSU 2011 http://visionsinmethodology.org/wpcontent/uploads/2011/09/VIMMurdiedocument.pdf
Do civil-military relations impact crisis outcome? The results shown here indicate that civil-military ¶ conflict
has a non-monotonic relationship with crisis success. Like Goldilocks and porridge, conflict can be ¶ either “too
hot” or “too cold.” However, mid-level civil-military friction does appear to improve the ¶ likelihood of crisis
bargaining success. This project thus serves as a reminder of the importance of both ¶ halves of Feaver's
“problematique”: the military has to be both under the control of the civilian leadership but ¶ still emboldened in its
mission directive. Unlike Feaver but very similar to Huntington, I argue that a military ¶ too complacent to the
civilian leadership limits military effectiveness by diminishing military fighting and ¶ limiting the information both
the civilian leadership and the adversary has in a crisis bargaining situation.61 ¶ I test this argument using a new and
somewhat novel events-dataset. Though publicly available data ¶ has limited the focus of this project to just the years
1990 to 2004, perhaps future coding projects could ¶ extend this approach to cover a longer time series. Additionally,
future work could focus on the impact of ¶ civil-military conflict on other measures of military effectiveness or crisis
outcomes. ¶ Nonetheless, the take-away message of this paper for civilian leaders and international observers is a ¶
powerful one: the impact of civil-military relations on crisis outcomes is more complex than just ensuring ¶
civilian control. Some leeway has to be provided to the military in order to maximize their role in creating ¶
successful crisis outcomes.
Empirically denied – CMR collapse during Clinton
Cohen, 97 (Eliot A., Robert E. Osgood Professor of Strategic Studies at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced
International Studies, “CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS”, Orbis, Spring 1997, Online,
https://www.fpri.org/americavulnerable/06.CivilMilitaryRelations.Cohen.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PEz
As one participant put it, when hearing military officers speak about President Bill Clinton, he felt tempted to
turn Voltaire’s apocryphal defense of free speech on its head: “I agree with everything that you say and am
appalled by the fact that you say it.” The first two years of the Clinton administration were marked by an
extraordinary display of open disdain and hostility by the military for the new president. The ill-advised nature
of his manpower policies (particularly his effort to lift the ban on homosexuals serving in uniform), the general
disregard for things military that characterized junior staffers in the White House, a proclivity to see the military as a
tool of domestic and international social work rather than strategic action, and the president’s own evasion of the
Vietnam-era draft explained this behavior on the part of officers but in no way made it acceptable. On many
occasions senior military officers not only tolerated their subordinates’ making contemptuous remarks about
the commander in chief—itself an offense subject to court-martial under the Uniform Code of Military Justice—
but amplified and reinforced such comments. Military officers also were increasingly willing to announce their
political affiliation (almost invariably with the Republican Party) or to display their political beliefs in such ways as
driving cars with anti-Clinton bumper stickers onto military bases, in defiance of tradition and the norms of
military service.
Africa Impact D
No risk of great power conflict over Africa
Robert Barrett, PhD student Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary, June 1, 2005,
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID726162_code327511.pdf?abstractid=726162&mirid=1
Westerners eager to promote democracy must be wary of African politicians who promise democratic reform
without sincere commitment to the process. Offering money to corrupt leaders in exchange for their taking small
steps away from autocracy may in fact be a way of pushing countries into anocracy. As such, world financial
lenders and interventionists who wield leverage and influence must take responsibility in considering the
ramifications of African nations who adopt democracy in order to maintain elite political privileges. The obvious
reason for this, aside from the potential costs in human life should conflict arise from hastily constructed
democratic reforms, is the fact that Western donors, in the face of intrastate war would then be faced with
channeling funds and resources away from democratization efforts and toward conflict intervention based on
issues of human security. This is a problem, as Western nations may be increasingly wary of intervening in
Africa hotspots after experiencing firsthand the unpredictable and unforgiving nature of societal warfare in both
Somalia and Rwanda. On a costbenefit basis, the West continues to be somewhat reluctant to get to get
involved in Africa’s dirty wars, evidenced by its political hesitation when discussing ongoing sanguinary
grassroots conflicts in Africa. Even as the world apologizes for bearing witness to the Rwandan genocide
without having intervened, the United States, recently using the label ‘genocide’ in the context of the
Sudanese conflict (in September of 2004), has only proclaimed sanctions against Sudan, while dismissing any
suggestions at actual intervention (Giry, 2005). Part of the problem is that traditional military and
diplomatic approaches at separating combatants and enforcing ceasefires have yielded little in Africa. No
powerful nations want to get embroiled in conflicts they cannot win – especially those conflicts in which the
intervening nation has very little interest.
International multilateral action solves the impact to African instability
Theo Neethling, Chair of the Subject Group Political Science (Mil) in the School for Security and Africa Studies
at the Faculty of Military Science, Stellenbosch University, 2005, No. 1, African Journal of Conflict Resolution,
http://www.accord.org.za/ajcr/2005-1/AJCR2005_pgs33-60_neethling.pdf, p. 57-58
Be that as it may, it is evident that a range of international reforms throughout the international system has taken place to
facilitate peacebuilding endeavours. Much was indeed done to facilitate a fundamental overhaul of the UN
system, while major aid agencies established conflict prevention and peacebuilding units . Also, some
Western governments aligned their foreign, security and development policies and programmes to respond to
the conflict prevention and peacebuilding agenda and challenges of the contemporary international community. This means
supporting policies, activities, programmes and projects which facilitate war-prone, war-torn or post-war countries to recover from conflict in
order to address longer-term developmental and security goals. All in all, it could be argued that this has led to a better understanding of
the political economy of armed conflicts, as well as a drive towards applying appropriate strategies and priorities to deal
with developmental and security challenges in responses to violent conflict and civil war. Obviously, this is of
great importance from an African perspective given the acute need to apply relevant and constructive measures and strategies
in the search for sustainable development and long-term security on the continent.
Their nuclear escalation claim is empirically denied by dozens of African conflicts
Tim Docking, African Affairs Specialist with the United States Institute of Peace, 20 07, Taking Sides Clashing
Views on African Issues, p. 372
Nowhere was the scope and intensity of violence during the 1990s as great as in Africa. While the general trend
of armed conflict in Europe, Asia, the Americas, and the Middle East fell during the 1989-99 period, the 1990s
witnessed an increase in the number of conflicts on the African continent . During this period, 16 UN
peacekeeping missions were sent to Africa. (Three countries-Somalia, Sierra Leone, and Angola-were visited by
multiple missions during this time.) Furthermore, this period saw internal and interstate violence in a total of 30
sub-Saharan states. In 1999 alone, the continent was plagued by 16 armed conflicts, seven of which were wars
with more than 1,000 battle-related deaths (Journal of Peace Research, 37:5, 2000, p. 638). In 2000, the situation
continued to deteriorate: renewed heavy fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia claimed tens of thousands of lives
in the lead-up to a June ceasefire and ultimately the signing of a peace accord in December; continued violence
in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Sierra Leone, Burundi, Angola, Sudan, Uganda, and Nigeria as
well as the outbreak of new violence between Guinea and Liberia, in Zimbabwe, and in the Ivory Coast have
brought new hardship and bloodshed to the continent.
HR Cred Advantage
Alt Cause
Drone Strikes Alt Cause to Human Rights/International Law
Roberts 13(Dan, reporter for the Guardian, 5-24-2013, The Guardian, “Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts'”,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/24/obama-drone-vetting-kill-courts)
Human-rights groups and peace groups opposed to the CIA-operated targeted-killing programme, which remains officially classified,
said the administration had already rejected international law in pursuing its drone operations. "To say they are
rewriting the rulebook implies that there isn't already a rulebook" said Jameel Jaffer, the director of the American Civil Liberties
Union's Center for Democracy. "But what they are already doing is rejecting a rulebook – of international law – that has been in place
since [the second world war]." He said the news was "frustrating", because it relied on "self-serving sources". The New York Times piece was
written by one of the journalists who first exposed the existence of a White House "kill list", in May. The ACLU is currently involved
in a legal battle with the US government over the legal memo underlying the controversial targeted killing
programme, the basis for drone strikes that have killed American citizens and the process by which
individuals are placed on the kill list. Jaffer said it was impossible to make a judgement about whether the "rulebook" being
discussed, according to the Times, was legal or illegal. "It is frustrating how we are reliant on self-serving leaks" said Jaffer. "We are left with
interpreting shadows cast on the wall. The terms that are being used by these officials are undefined, malleable and without definition. It is
impossible to know whether they are talking about something lawful or unlawful.
Moving Doesn’t Solve
Moving detainees to the US doesn’t give them any additional right
Spencer et al. 5 (Jack, Jack Spencer oversees Heritage Foundation research on a wide range of domestic
economic issues as director of the Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies. Those topics include federal spending,
taxes, energy and environment, regulation and retirement savings., Senior Research Fellow for Russian and Eurasian
Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies
Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies Ariel Cohen brings firsthand knowledge of the former
Soviet Union and the Middle East through a wide range of studies, covering issues such as economic development
and political reform in the former Soviet republics, U.S. energy security, the global War on Terrorism and the
continuing conflict in the Middle East., James Phillips is the Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs at
the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies at The Heritage Foundation. He has written
extensively on Middle Eastern issues and international terrorism since 1978., Analyst Heritage Foundation ->
Defense and National Security, “No Good Reason To Close Gitmo,” The Heritage Foundation, June 14, 2005,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/06/no-good-reason-to-close-gitmo) SS
Moving the detainees within the continental United States will not give them additional rights because
Guantanamo Bay is already considered sufficiently under U.S. control to provide rights to them.[6] After the
Rasul opinion, the detainees and the U.S. government will have the same legal advantages and disadvantages
within the U.S. as they do at Guantanamo Bay. There are no compelling legal reasons to move the detainees and
close Guantanamo Bay.
ILaw Doesn’t Solve
Humans rights treaties don’t solve in repressive regimes
HAFNER-BURTON, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs and Department of Politics,
Princeton University and TSUTSUI, prof @ University of Michigan 2007 (Emilie M. and Kiyoteru, “Justice
Lost! The Failure of International Human Rights Law To Matter Where Needed Most” Journal of peace research
vol. 44 num 4)
Despite recent skepticism, scholars of international relations, law, and sociology have long argued that laws can make a
difference, and hope for improvement is common (Landman, 2005; see Hafner-Burton & Ron, 2006). Many politicians and
nongovernmental activists also believe that human rights laws initiate processes and dialogues that involve learning
over time and, through learning, the eventual change in belief about rational or appropriate actions (Abbott & Snidal, 2000). They provide
rules and organizational structures that constrain national sovereignty, serving as justification and a forum for action that can shape governments’
political interests and belief about appropriate actions (Chayes & Chayes, 1998; Franck, 1988; Lutz & Sikkink, 2000). And persuasive accounts
argue that governments ratify human rights treaties, not always as symbolic acts, but also as expressions of preference for reform (Simmons,
2006). By almost all such accounts, if human rights laws matter for political reform, they will take time to be of importance, as belief change and
capacity-building for implementation are unlikely to be easy or immediate and may well happen in fits and starts (Chayes & Chayes, 1993).
Theories of compliance, however, are to some extent divorced from research. Current findings largely
emphasize that treaties work in some cases – democracies. But these studies largely ignore the dynamics of
compliance. This is troubling because the human rights regime was created precisely to stop outbreaks of
extreme violence among the world’s worst abusers, and its founders knew this process would take time. Perhaps researchers are
finding that treaties matter most on the margins because studies are not taking the dynamics of compliance seriously. Maybe repressive autocrats
simply need more time to come under the sway of international laws and build capacity than other, more democratic, states.
Imperialism Advantage
Inevitable
US Imperialism Inevitable- History shows
Khodaee 11 (Esfandiar, American Studies at Tehran University, “Is imperialism Inevitable for America?” July
19, 2011, http://peace.blog.com/2011/07/19/imperialism/)
Imperialism takes root from human nature. In history we see whenever a country had the power to expand its
domination, it never hesitated. Historical examples are: Roman, Persian, Ottoman, Japanese, Chinese, French, Spanish, English, Portugal and Mongol
Empires. Today American Empire is a live example having all the common features of previous Empires. Some
common features of all Empires are: All these Empires have a clear date for emergence and a final date of weakness or even vanishing. For Example the Soviet Union
All above mentioned Empires expanded
to the point they could afford, and then declined. The “balance of power” theory presents a good perception.
It reveals the fact that an imperialist power goes forward to the point that domestic and foreign pressure
stops or remove it. Some of these Imperialist powers like the Soviet Union and America besides their realistic interests in Imperialism,
have also ideological bases. The Soviet Union tried to expand Communism; America is trying to expand Capitalism. Today the United States of America
Empire was born in the beginning of the twentieth century and collapsed in the end of the same century in 1991.
both in realistic and idealistic point of view has chosen an Imperialistic way of dealing other countries. From the realistic point of view, America needs new markets to
help its economy proceed, also for the sake of security America resorts to intervention in four corners of the world. In idealistic point of view American decision
makers believe Capitalism through democracy is the best way for governing human societies. They sometimes use this ideology as a pretext for their realistic benefits.
They know that any capitalist democracy in any corner of the world meets their interest and they have fewer problems with democracies around the world. For
example Japan, Germany and Italy are no longer a threat to American security. So are India, Pakistan and South Africa. But countries like Iran, Venezuela and Sudan
which are not in the realm of their alleged democracy will never meet their security standards. After the terrorist attack of 11 September 2001, US found concrete
security excuses to militarily intervening Afghanistan and Iraq. Imperialism
is inevitable for America because it roots in American
history and culture. From its early days of being English colonies America has never stopped expanding. The
first victims were native Indians who lost their lands. Then the French colonies in America, then the Britain Kingdom and then the Mexico which lost Texas, Arizona
and New Mexico. From 1850s to 1890s because of civil war between the two systems of Capitalism and Slavery and then the Reconstruction, American expansion
came to a halt. In 1898 America emerged in a full imperialistic appearance to defeat the frustrated Spain and gain Filipinas in Far East Asia. During the twentieth
century the United States in an average of less than a year (nearly every 10 month) has intervened a country. You can’t find a country in the world which America
hasn’t attacked, intervened or at least performed a quota. Imagine an Iraqi citizen living in 1607 in Baghdad accidently learns about the establishment of a new
English colony in thousands of kilometers far west. He never could believe four hundred years later (in 2003) the same colony as a superpower would change the fate
of his country and remove his president (Saddam). America
will never give up its Imperialism nature, unless the balance of
power blocks it. Today, after the cold war and at the advent of globalization the A twinkle of hope is the multinational treaties between groups of countries.
Through these treaties may be in the future they can defend themselves.
Doesn’t Solve
No solvency – Guantanamo showcases U.S. imperialism, but closure doesn’t overcome alt
causes
Greenberg, 12 (Karen J., historian, professor, and author. She is Director of the Center on National Security at
Fordham University's School of Law, Imagining a world without Guantanamo, January 12, 2012, Online,
Washington Post Opinions, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-01-12/opinions/35438031_1_detaineesguantanamo-bay-indefinite-detention, accessed 7/27/13) PE
Without Guantanamo, there would be no focal point that so readily called to mind the U.S. role in the war on
terror. There would be no one place that encapsulated the errant journey that the nation began in the wake of 9/11,
the startling deviation from law and process, from the self-identity of America as law-abiding, confident and fair.
The absence of Guantanamo — this one term that evokes so much — would have meant that the United States had
not chosen the easy out.¶ Had there been no Guantanamo, the nation would have had to confront the issues
that continue to haunt us: the ability of the Constitution to deal with 21st-century enemies; the strengths and
weaknesses of our intelligence services; the uncertainty of who is an enemy and who is not. Without Guantanamo,
the country’s leaders would have had to create aboveboard policies that would not have led us into a state of
perpetual limbo, now codified by Congress and supported by the president in the form of indefinite detention and
military detention for foreign terrorism suspects.¶ With no Guantanamo, there would still be much to trouble us:
the war in Iraq and the lies that got us there, the losses in Afghanistan, the overstepping of the security state
into conversations, virtual and otherwise. But there wouldn’t be a glaring badge of shame on the United States. Nor
would there be a ready symbol of the country’s willingness to allow national security to trump the rule of law.
Without Guantanamo, our moral compass wouldn’t have been so visibly hijacked.¶
Can’t solve – protests against Guantanamo are political posturing – it’s a symptom rather
than a cause of imperialism
O’Neil, 6 (Brendon, columnist for the Big Issue, a blogger for the Telegraph, and a writer for the Spectator, Editor
of Spiked, Guantanamo Bay and the champagne anti-imperialists, March 10, 2006, Online, http://www.spikedonline.com/newsite/article/246#.UfV6dtJtN2w, accessed 7/28/13) PE
The Camp X-Ray prisons at Guantanamo Bay - where 500 men are being held in legal limbo, still unsure whether
they are prisoners of war, ‘illegal combatants’ or what - are a common disgrace. They should be shut down,
dismantled, sold for scrap, and their inhabitants set free immediately. More to the point, we should challenge the
idea that these individuals pose a threat to civilisation and everything that America and the West hold dear, and that
they therefore must be locked up indefinitely and even have their toothbrushes sawn in half. That is the beginning
and the end of my political position on Guantanamo Bay. And that is why I won’t be signing up any time soon to
the fashionable public campaign against Camp X-Ray. That campaign - whose adherents include[s] everyone from
the Archbishop of Canterbury, to every bicycle-riding liberals’ favourite bicycle-riding newsreader, Jon Snow,
to the not-especially principled publicity supremo Max Clifford (who reportedly scored high-profile newspaper
interviews for some of the Brits freed from Guantanamo) - is less about getting the prison shut down, and even less
about challenging the war on terror that sustains it, than it is about demonstrating the campaigners’ own whiter-thanwhite credentials to the watching world. Wondering about the strange goings-on at Guantanamo has become a
kind of pornography for the chattering classes, and chastising Camp X-Ray a shortcut to showing that you
are a good and noble person. It is public protest as narcissistic preening, and anyone interested in challenging
the ‘war on terror’ should steer well clear of it. Guantanamo Bay is everywhere. Even as post-war Afghanistan
remains a mess and post-war Iraq becomes an ever-more vacuous and violent state, virtually the only big public
debate about Bush and Blair’s military shenanigans focuses on Camp X-Ray. That is weird for two reasons. First,
we know what is happening in Afghanistan and Iraq but we are uncertain as to what is happening in Camp X-Ray,
which is a highly secretive and closed-off prison; second, Camp X-Ray is a byproduct of the wars in Afghanistan
and Iraq, a symptom rather than the cause of American and British military interventionism. In some ways, it
is precisely the secretive nature of Camp X-Ray and the fact that it has become a kind of separate entity,
dislocated from its origins in the ‘war on terror’, that makes it attractive to the campaigners: it allows them to
indulge a sense of moral righteousness and outrage without having to think too hard about hard facts or the messy
political business of taking a public stand against Western interventionism.
US should reform GITMO-shutting it down doesn’t solve
Sun Sentinel 6 (Sun Sentinel, The Sun Sentinel, owned by the Tribune Company, is the main daily newspaper of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, U.S., and all of
Broward County, but circulates throughout South Florida. It is the largest-circulation newspaper in South Florida. The publisher, since 2007, is Howard Greenberg.
The editor, since 2011, is Howard Saltz., The paper was awarded its first Pulitzer Prize on April 15, 2013, the Gold Medal in the category of Public Service
Journalism, for its investigative series about hundreds of off-duty police officers who regularly speed -- often at 120 or 130 mph -- without being punished. You can
read the series here, The newspaper has also been a finalist for a Pulitzer 13 times, including for its 2005 coverage of Hurricane Wilma and an investigation into the
Federal Emergency Management Agency's mismanagement of hurricane aid. (The latter investigation was featured in the PBS documentary series Exposé: America's
Investigative Reports in an episode entitled "Crisis Mismanagement.") It also produced a significant contribution to information graphics in the form of News
Illustrated, a weekly full-page graphic that has received more than 30 international awards. The photography department has been nominated for a Pulitzer Prize twice
in the Spot News category. It was nominated in 1982 for its coverage of a Haitian refugee boat disaster. It was nominated again in 1999 for its powerful coverage of
Hurricane Mitch in Central America. The Sun Sentinel publishes several websites, including SunSentinel.com, SouthFlorida.com, SouthFloridaParenting.com,
CityLinkMix.com, and TeenlinkSouthFlorida.com. Its website has news video from two South Florida television stations: West Palm Beach's CBS affiliate WPEC
and WSFL-TV, the Miami and Fort Lauderdale CW affiliate. It also publishes a Spanish-language weekly, El Sentinel, and an alternative weekly distributed for free
throughout the region. “Guantanamo,” Sun Sentinel Articles, February 20, 2006, http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/2006-02-
20/news/0602190101_1_guantanamo-bay-prison-camp-fair-minded) SS
The U.S. prison camp for terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay should not be closed. It serves a useful
purpose. Besides, there is something unseemly and hypocritical about an international agency populated by egregious
human-rights violators scolding the United States over alleged abuses of human rights, especially when the
allegations come largely from the prisoners themselves. This should not be taken to mean, though, that all is well at Guantanamo. The
place has richly earned a reputation that has harmed America's image in much of the world. The United
States must improve conditions there and treat the prisoners more fairly. Fairness starts with bringing
detainees to trial in a reasonable period of time. Isn't that the American way? The four-year period that has elapsed since many were brought
to Guantanamo already qualifies as unreasonable. The United States should conduct trials not because anti-American operatives at the United Nations say so. It should
do so because it's the right thing to do, and because America
cannot expect to be regarded as the international model for the
rule of law if it ignores the rule of law itself, even in so just a cause as the war on terror. No one should shed a tear for the
true terrorists at Guantanamo. But many detainees were picked up in sweeps that cast a very wide net amid
the fog of war in Afghanistan. They aren't necessarily terrorists. The war on terror, as defined by the Bush administration, is openended and may not end in our lifetimes. No fair-minded person should accept the notion that it's all right to imprison
people in perpetuity when they may not be guilty of anything. No fair-minded country should think that way
either. BOTTOM LINE: The camp should not be closed, but the U.S. must treat prisoners better and bring them to
trial promptly.
Imperialism Good
American imperialism should be embraced – it has been the greatest force for good in the
world
Boot, 2003 (Max, Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "American Imperialism? No Need to
Run Away from Label," 5-18-2003, www.attacberlin.de/fileadmin/Sommerakademie/Boot_Imperialim_fine.pdf)
The greatest danger is that we won't use all of our power for fear of the ''I'' word -- imperialism. When asked on
April 28 on al-Jazeera whether the United States was ''empire building,'' Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld reacted as if he'd been asked
whether he wears women's underwear. ''We don't seek empires,'' he replied huffily. ''We're not imperialistic. We never have been.'' That's a fine
answer for public consumption. The problem is that it isn't true. The United States has been an empire since at least 1803, when Thomas Jefferson
purchased the Louisiana Territory. Throughout the 19th century, what Jefferson called the ''empire of liberty'' expanded across the continent.
When U.S. power stretched from ''sea to shining sea,'' the American empire moved abroad, acquiring colonies ranging from Puerto Rico and the
Philippines to Hawaii and Alaska. While the formal empire mostly disappeared after World War II, the United States set out on another bout of
imperialism in Germany and Japan. Oh, sorry -- that wasn't imperialism; it was ''occupation.'' But when Americans are running foreign
governments, it's a distinction without a difference. Likewise, recent ''nation-building'' experiments in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo and
Afghanistan (news - web sites) are imperialism under another name. Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of
American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been plenty of shameful episodes,
such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest force for good in the
world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and Nazism and lesser evils
such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions to
countries as diverse as South Korea (news - web sites) and Panama. Yet, while generally successful as imperialists, Americans have been loath to
confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that ''imperialism'' carries, there's no need for the U.S.
government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the practice. That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural
resources; nothing could be more destructive of our goal of building a stable government in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law, property
rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then
backing him or her to the hilt. Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we shouldn't hesitate to
impose our democratic views. The indications are mixed as to whether the United States is prepared to embrace its imperial role
unapologetically. Rumsfeld has said that an Iranian-style theocracy ''isn't going to happen,'' and President Bush (news - web sites) has pledged to
keep U.S. troops in Iraq as long as necessary to ''build a peaceful and representative government.'' After allowing a temporary power vacuum to
develop, U.S. troops now are moving aggressively to put down challenges to their authority by, for example, arresting the self-declared ''mayor''
of Baghdad. That's all for the good. But there are also some worrisome signs. Bush asked for only $2.5 billion from Congress for rebuilding Iraq,
even though a study from the Council on Foreign Relations and the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy estimates that $25 billion to
$100 billion will be needed. Iraq's oil revenues and contributions from allies won't cover the entire shortfall. The president should be doing more
to prepare the U.S. public and Congress for a costly commitment. Otherwise, Iraqis quickly could become disillusioned about the benefits of
liberation. The cost of our commitment will be measured not only in money but also in troops. While Bush and Rumsfeld have wisely eschewed
any talk of an early ''exit strategy,'' they still seem to think that U.S. forces won't need to stay more than two years. Rumsfeld even denied a report
that the U.S. armed forces are planning to open permanent bases in Iraq. If they're not, they should be. That's the only way to ensure the security
of a nascent democracy in such a rough neighborhood. Does the administration really imagine that Iraq will have turned into Switzerland in two
years' time? Allied rule lasted four years in Germany and seven years in Japan. American troops remain stationed in both places more than 50
years later. That's why these two countries have become paragons of liberal democracy. It is crazy to think that Iraq -- which has less of a
democratic tradition than either Germany or Japan had in 1945 -- could make the leap overnight. The record of nation-building during the past
decade is clear: The United States failed in Somalia and Haiti, where it pulled out troops prematurely. Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan show
more promise because U.S. troops remain stationed there. Afghanistan would be making even more progress if the United States and its allies had
made a bigger commitment to secure the countryside, not just Kabul. If we want Iraq to avoid becoming a Somalia on steroids,
we'd better get used to U.S. troops being deployed there for years, possibly decades, to come. If that raises
hackles about American imperialism, so be it. We're going to be called an empire whatever we do. We might
as well be a successful empire.
Criticizing Western “imperialism” obscures more insidious practices by regional powers
Shaw, 2 (Martin Shaw, professor of international relations at University of Sussex, Uses and Abuses of AntiImperialism in the Global Era, 4-7-2002, http://www.martinshaw.org/empire.htm)
It is fashionable in some circles, among which we must clearly include the organizers of this conference, to argue that the global era is seeing 'a
new imperialism' - that can be blamed for the problem of 'failed states' (probably among many others). Different contributors to this strand of
thought name this imperialism in different ways, but novelty is clearly a critical issue. The logic of using the term imperialism is actually to
establish continuity between contemporary forms of Western world power and older forms first so named by Marxist and other theorists a century
ago. The last thing that critics of a new imperialism wish to allow is that Western power has changed sufficiently to invalidate the very
application of this critical concept. Nor have many considered the possibility that if
the concept of imperialism has a relevance
today, it applies to certain aggressive, authoritarian regimes of the non-Western world rather than to the
contemporary West. In this paper I fully accept that there is a concentration of much world power - economic, cultural, political and
military - in the hands of Western elites. In my recent book, Theory of the Global State, I discuss the development of a 'global-Western state
conglomerate' (Shaw 2000). I argue that 'global' ideas and institutions, whose significance characterizes the new political era that has opened with
the end of the Cold War, depend largely - but not solely - on Western power. I hold no brief and intend no apology for official Western ideas and
behaviour. And yet I propose that the idea of a new imperialism is a profoundly misleading, indeed ideological concept
that obscures the realities of power and especially of empire in the twenty-first century. This notion is an obstacle to
understanding the significance, extent and limits of contemporary Western power. It simultaneously serves to obscure many real
causes of oppression, suffering and struggle for transformation against the quasi-imperial power of many
regional states. I argue that in the global era, this separation has finally become critical. This is for two related reasons. On the one hand,
Western power has moved into new territory, largely uncharted -- and I argue unchartable -- with the critical tools of anti-imperialism. On the
other hand, the politics of empire remain all too real, in classic forms that recall both modern imperialism and earlier empires, in many nonWestern states, and they are revived in many political struggles today. Thus the concept of a 'new imperialism' fails to deal with
both key post-imperial features of Western power and the quasi-imperial character of many non-Western
states. The concept overstates Western power and understates the dangers posed by other, more
authoritarian and imperial centres of power. Politically it identifies the West as the principal enemy of the
world's people, when for many of them there are far more real and dangerous enemies closer to home . I shall
return to these political issues at the end of this paper.
Imperialism is good: the defeat of Nazism and the promotion of democracy are proof.
Boot, 2003 (Max, Olin senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, "American Imperialism? No Need to
Run Away from Label," 5-18-2003, www.attacberlin.de/fileadmin/Sommerakademie/Boot_Imperialim_fine.pdf)
Mind you, this is not meant as a condemnation. The history of American imperialism is hardly one of unadorned good doing; there have been
plenty of shameful episodes, such as the mistreatment of the Indians. But, on the whole, U.S. imperialism has been the greatest
force for good in the world during the past century. It has defeated the monstrous evils of communism and
Nazism and lesser evils such as the Taliban and Serbian ethnic cleansing. Along the way, it has helped spread liberal institutions
to countries as diverse as South Korea (news - web sites) and Panama. Yet, while generally successful as imperialists,
Americans have been loath to confirm that's what they were doing. That's OK. Given the historical baggage that ''imperialism''
carries, there's no need for the U.S. government to embrace the term. But it should definitely embrace the
practice. That doesn't mean looting Iraq of its natural resources; nothing could be more destructive of our goal of building a stable government
in Baghdad. It means imposing the rule of law, property rights, free speech and other guarantees, at gunpoint if
need be. This will require selecting a new ruler who is committed to pluralism and then backing him or her
to the hilt. Iran and other neighboring states won't hesitate to impose their despotic views on Iraq; we
shouldn't hesitate to impose our democratic views.
Criticizing benevolent action on the grounds of imperialism undermines liberation of
oppressed people – imperialism is justified in some instances.
Shaw, 2 (Martin Shaw, professor of international relations at University of Sussex, Uses and Abuses of AntiImperialism in the Global Era, 4-7-2002, http://www.martinshaw.org/empire.htm AFM)
Conclusion: The abuses of anti-imperialism It is worth asking how the politics of anti-imperialism distorts Western leftists'
responses to global struggles for justice. John Pilger, for example, consistently seeks to minimise the crimes of Milosevic in Kosovo,
and to deny their genocidal character - purely because these crimes formed part of the rationale for Western intervention against Serbia. He never
attempted to minimise the crimes of the pro-Western Suharto regime in the same way. The crimes of quasi-imperial regimes are similar in cases
like Yugoslavia and Indonesia, but the West's attitudes towards them are undeniably uneven and inconsistent. To take as the criterion of one's
politics opposition to Western policy, rather than the demands for justice of the victims of oppression as such, distorts our responses to the
victims and our commitment to justice. We need to support the victims regardless of whether Western governments
take up their cause or not; we need to judge Western power not according to a general assumption of 'new
imperialism' but according to its actual role in relation to the victims. The task for civil society in the West is
not, therefore to oppose Western state policies as a matter of course, à la Cold War, but to mobilise solidarity with
democratic oppositions and repressed peoples, against authoritarian, quasi-imperial states. It is to demand more
effective global political, legal and military institutions that genuinely and consistently defend the interests of the most
threatened groups. It is to grasp the contradictions among and within Western elites, conditionally allying themselves with
internationalising elements in global institutions and Western governments, against nationalist and reactionary elements. The arrival in power of
George Bush II makes this discrimination all the more urgent. In the long run, we
need to develop a larger politics of global social
democracy and an ethic of global responsibility that address the profound economic , political and cultural
inequalities between Western and non-Western worlds. We will not move far in these directions, however, unless we grasp the
life-and-death struggles between many oppressed peoples and the new local imperialisms, rather than subsuming all regional
contradictions into the false synthesis of a new Western imperialism.
US imperialism is necessary to prevent war and genocide - their criticism thwarts the more
important task of humanizing the imperial order from within
David Rieff, Volume XVI, No2, SUMMER 1999. A New Age of Liberal Imperialism?
But the implications of not doing anything are equally clear. Those who fear American power are-this is absolutely certaincondemning other people to death. Had the U.S. armed forces not set up the air bridge to eastern Zaire in the
wake of the Rwandan genocide, hundreds of thousands of people would have perished, rather than the tens of
thousands who did die. This does not excuse the Clinton administration for failing to act to stop the genocide militarily; but it is a fact.
And analogous situations were found in Bosnia and even, for all its failings, in the operation in Somalia. < CONTINUED.> Is thisproposal
tantamount-to calling for decolonization of part of the world? Would such a system make the United States even more powerful than it is
already? Clearly it is, and clearly it would. But what are the alternatives? Kosovo demonstrates how little stomach the United States has for the
kind of military action mat its moral ambitions impel it to undertake. And there will be many more Kosovos in the coming
decades. With the victory of capitalism nearly absolute, the choice is not between systems but about what kind of capitalist system we are
going to have and what kind of world order that system requires. However controversial it may be to say this our choice at the
millennium seems to boil down to imperialism or barbarism. Half-measures of the type we have seen in various humanitarian
interventions and in Kosovo represent the worst of both worlds. Better to grasp the nettle and accept that liberal imperialism
may be the best we are going to do in these callous and sentimental times . Indeed, the real task for people who
reject both realism and the Utopian nihilism of a left that would prefer to see genocide in Bosnia and the mass
deportation of the Kosovars rather than strengthen, however marginally, the hegemony of the United States, is to trv to
humanize this new imperial order-assuming it can come into being-and to curb the excesses that it will doubtless produce. The
alternative is not liberation, or the triumph of some global consensus of conscience, but to paraphrase Che Guevara,
one, two, three, many Kosovos.
International Law Advantage
Alt Cause
Impact Non-Unique—US will always refuse to comply with IL
Global Policy Forum ’12 (an independent publication that monitors UN and global political activity, “US
Opposition to the International Criminal Court,” Global Policy Forum, http://www.globalpolicy.org/us-un-andinternational-law-8-24/us-opposition-to-the-icc-8-29.html)
The United States government has consistently opposed an international court that could hold US military
and political leaders to a uniform global standard of justice. The Clinton administration participated actively
in negotiations towards the International Criminal Court treaty, seeking Security Council screening of cases. If
adopted, this would have enabled the US to veto any dockets it opposed. When other countries refused to agree
to such an unequal standard of justice, the US campaigned to weaken and undermine the court. The Bush
administration, coming into office in 2001 as the Court neared implementation, adopted an extremely active
opposition. Washington began to negotiate bilateral agreements with other countries, insuring immunity of US
nationals from prosecution by the Court. As leverage, Washington threatened termination of economic aid,
withdrawal of military assistance, and other painful measures. The Obama administration has so far made
greater efforts to engage with the Court. It is participating with the Court's governing bodies and it is providing
support for the Court's ongoing prosecutions. Washington, however, has no intention to join the ICC, due to its
concern about possible charges against US nationals.
GITMO Not Key
International law fails, GITMO not a key instance; and, focus on laws of war trades off
with environmental, economic issues
Guzman ’01 (Andrew T., Professor of Law and Associate Dean, International and Graduate Programs,
University of California, Berkeley Law
Third, it is demonstrated that international law is most likely to affect outcomes when there are many repeated
interactions and each of those interactions involves relatively small stakes. Although this claim is not new, it
leads to the conclusion that the topics which have traditionally held center stage in international law -- such
as the laws of war, neutrality, arms control, and so on -- are precisely the topics in which international law is
least likely to be relevant. This conclusion has two lessons for international law scholarship. The first is that
international law scholarship may be unduly focused on these topics. The fact they are arguably the most
important issues in international relations does not imply that they should form the centerpiece of
international law because international law will often be unable to affect outcomes. Scholars may have a
greater impact on human well-being if they devote more energy to areas in which international law can alter
outcomes more reliably. These include a range of important areas including economic issues, environmental
issues, labor issues, and so on. The second, somewhat more subtle, lesson is that the study of these issues, and the
design of international institutions should proceed with an understanding of the limits of international law.
International law can play a role in encouraging cooperation, but can only do so if obligations are structured in a
fashion that reduces the importance of each compliance decision. For example, an arms treaty, by itself may have
little success but a treaty that provides for periodic inspections by a neutral third party may stand a much greater
chance of achieving the goal of arms control.
Closing GITMO can’t solve—critical investigation key to regain credibility
Tolbert ’13 (David, President of the International Center for Transitional Justice, former registrar for United
Nations, “United States Must Ensure Accountability For War on Terror Abuses,” International Center for
Transnational Justice, 4/29, http://ictj.org/news/united-states-must-ensure-accountability-%E2%80%9Cwarterror%E2%80%9D-abuses)
This posture, if maintained, runs contrary to the US government’s repeated assertions of its commitment to human
rights as well as its obligations under law, including as a signatory of the United Nations Convention against
Torture. To regain its credibility in the eyes of the world, the government must take steps to acknowledge and
address past violations and provide redress to victims of US-sanctioned abuses. This is the minimum that
international law demands. Decades of American discourse in support of human rights ring hollow in the
silence of US inaction on these abuses. The International Center for Transitional justice, through its Accountability
Project, and other human rights groups have consistently advocated for an official inquiry into allegations of USsanctioned torture. Senator Patrick J. Leahy, of Vermont, proposed the establishment of a truth commission to
examine allegations of detainee abuse following the September 11 attacks as far back as February 2009; but
Congress, shamefully, has failed to act. Moreover, no senior figure has been brought to the bar of justice for acts
in violation of international and national law. While the commendable Constitution Project’s report has shone a
light on serious and credible evidence of abuses, it is no substitute for government action to get to the truth, hold
perpetrators accountable, and provide redress to victims. ICTJ’s global experience, including in the United
States, points to the necessity of addressing legacies of serious human rights abuses. A society that prides itself
on respecting the rule of law cannot look the other way when abuses are sanctioned in its midst. The rule of law
cannot be applied a la carte, with governments picking and choosing when the law should or should not be
applied, and to whom. “Closing the door” on serious crimes such as torture and arbitrary detention is an
illusion. Americans have learned this the hard way; one need only think of Japanese internment during
World War II, and the long delayed apology and compensation. It is a lesson not to be forgotten. Many other
countries have actively addressed their history of government use of torture and other serious crimes, while
solidifying, rather than sacrificing, a commitment to democratic and human rights values. Those countries
initially faced arguments against accountability similar to those now made in the United States: that the facts were
known, that actions were justified, that looking into abuses would be politically divisive, and that the focus should
be on moving forward. Yet, transformative leaders in places as diverse as Latin America, South Africa, and
Eastern Europe have realized that change would not be possible without first looking back and taking steps
toward accountability. In many instances, these countries did so with the encouragement and support of the United
States.
International Law bad, undermines state sovereignty
Feith et al, 6-18 (Douglas J. Director, Center for National Security Strategies, Senior Fellow Hudson Institute,
Washington, D.C. Headquarters, “The War of Law: How New International Law Undermines Democratic
Sovereignty,” Hudson Institute, 2013, http://www.hudson.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=publication_details&id=9629)
Transnationalists argue that in the interest of promoting "global governance," U.S. officials should bring the
Constitution and American law into conformity with "global norms," thus effectively elevating those norms
above the Constitution. They want the United States to adopt what they deem progressive rules -- for example, gun
control, the banning of the death penalty, and new laws of war. But they want to do so through judicial decisions, a
method that allows them to circumvent resistant legislatures and effectively smuggle new restrictions into U.S.
law. As becomes clear from even a cursory reading of leading American law journals and official communiqués of
the European Union, transnationalism is an influential school of thought in academic and official circles in the
United States and throughout the developed world. A key proponent of the movement is Harold Koh, the former
dean of Yale Law School who served four years as the State Department's legal adviser in the Obama
administration. Koh has been a compelling advocate of what he calls "the transnational legal process,"
whereby "transnational private actors" blend domestic and international legal processes to incorporate or
internalize so-called global legal norms into domestic law. "Key agents in promoting this process of
internalization include transnational norm entrepreneurs, governmental norm sponsors, transnational issue networks,
and interpretive communities," he wrote in a 2006 Penn State International Law Review article. "In this story, one of
these agents triggers an interaction at the international level, works together with other agents of
internalization to force an interpretation of the international legal norm in an interpretive forum, and then
continues to work with those agents to persuade a resisting nation-state to internalize that interpretation into
domestic law." In the same law journal article, Koh wrote about the way international law can be
"downloaded" into U.S. law. These ideas no doubt appeal to those who support the progressive policies at issue.
But they are disrespectful toward the U.S. Constitution and dismissive of the idea that the American people
should be able to elect -- and eject -- the officials who make their laws. The transnationalists challenge not
merely the technicalities of lawmaking but the very essence of democratic accountability. Transnationalists do
not have grandiose plans for one-world government, but they do want to give various rules the force of law
without having to win majorities for those rules in democratically elected legislatures. This is not the way
lawmaking is supposed to work under the U.S. Constitution.
US Not Key
Other countries solve the impact—US not key
Benvenisti 8 –Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University (Eval, “Reclaiming Democracy: The Strategic Uses Of
Foreign And International Law By National Courts,” 102 A.J.I.L. 241,
http://law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=taulwps)
It wasn’t so long ago that the overwhelming majority of courts in democratic countries shared a reluctance to refer to foreign and international
law. These courts conformed to a policy of avoiding any application of foreign sources of law that would clash with the position of their domestic
governments. For many jurists, recourse to foreign and international law is inappropriate.1 But even the supporters of the reference to external
sources of law share the thus-unexplored assumption that reliance on foreign and international law is inevitably in tension with the value of
national sovereignty. Hence the scholarly debate is framed along the lines of the well-known broader debate on “the counter-majoritarian
difficulty.”2 This Article questions this assumption of tension. It argues that for courts in most democratic countries – even if not
for U.S. courts at present – referring to foreign and international law has become an effective instrument for
empowering the domestic democratic processes by shielding them from external economic, political and even
legal pressures. Citing international law, therefore, actually bolsters domestic democratic processes and reclaims national sovereignty from
the diverse forces of globalization. Stated differently, most national courts, seeking to maintain the vitality of their national political
institutions and to safeguard their own domestic status vis-à-vis the political branches, cannot afford to ignore foreign and
international law. In recent years, courts in several democracies have begun to engage quite seriously in the
interpretation and application of international law and to heed the constitutional jurisprudence of other
national courts.
Other countries fill in
Pederson 8 (Ole, Professor @ Newcastle, http://internationallawobserver.eu/2008/09/18/fading-influence-of-the-ussupreme-court/, AD: 7/10/10) jl
It appears that it is not only the EU whose authority is fading. Today’s NY Times has a very interesting story on the influence of the US
Supreme Court, which is well worth a read. The article states that the number of citations of US Supreme Court cases
in other jurisdictions is in decline compared to just ten years ago. There are many reasons for this, according to, inter alia,
Thomas Ginsburg of University of Chicago and Aharon Barak, former president of the Israeli Supreme Court. One reason is the
rise in the numbers of constitutional courts elsewhere, which has, through time, created a rich
jurisprudence on constitutional law rendering the need to cite US cases less essential . Additionally, US
foreign policy may play a part in the diminishing influence of the oldest constitutional court in world. Finally, the reluctance of
the US Supreme Court itself to cite foreign law when adjudicating may play a role . This final point is perhaps
the most interesting. Whereas European (including the ECJ and the ECtHR), Australian and Canadian courts do not
shy away from referring to foreign law, it has always been a sensitive topic in the US where many scholars
favour leaving aside foreign law. This approach has its clear democratic justification but as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg said in 2006 in
an address to the South African Constitutional Court:
“[F]oreign opinions are not authoritative; they set no binding precedent for the U.S. judge. But they can
add to the store of knowledge relevant to the solution of trying questions. Yes, we should approach foreign legal materials with
sensitivity to our differences, deficiencies, and imperfect understanding, but imperfection, I believe, should not lead us to abandon the
effort to learn what we can from the experience and good thinking foreign sources may convey.”
Other countries support international law now
Benvenisti 8 (Eyal, Professor of Law, Tel Aviv University, 102 A.J.I.L. 241, lexis) jl
In recent years, courts in several democracies have begun to engage seriously in the interpretation and
application of international law and to heed the constitutional jurisprudence of other national courts. Most
recently, this new tendency has been demonstrated by the judicial [*242] responses to the global
counterterrorism effort since the events of September 11, 2001: national courts have been challenging
executive unilateralism in what could perhaps be a globally coordinated move. In this article I describe and
explain this shift, arguing that the chief motivation of the national courts is not to promote global justice, for
they continue to regard themselves first and foremost as national agents. Rather, the new jurisprudence is
part of a reaction to the forces of globalization, which are placing increasing pressure on the different
domestic branches of government to conform to global standards. This reaction seeks to expand the
space for domestic deliberation, to strengthen the ability of national governments to withstand the pressure
brought to bear by interest groups and powerful foreign governments, and to insulate the national courts from
intergovernmental pressures. For this strategy to succeed, courts need to forge a united judicial front, which
entails coordinating their policies with equally positioned courts in other countries by developing common
communication tools consisting of international law and comparative constitutional law. The analysis also
explains why the U.S. Supreme Court, which does not need to protect the domestic political or judicial
processes from external pressure, has still not joined this collective effort. 3 On the basis of this insight into
the driving force behind reliance on foreign law, the article proposes another outlook for assessing the
legitimacy of national courts' resort to foreign and international legal sources. It asserts that recourse to these
sources is perfectly legitimate from a democratic theory perspective, as it aims at reclaiming democracy from
the debilitating grip of globalization.
Relations Advantage
GITMO Key
Turn – Guantanamo Base is a necessary jumping off point for relations
Iglesias 12
Commander Carlos of the United States Navy The U.S. Army War College is accredited by the Commission on
Higher Education of the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools “United States Security Policy Implications of a Post-Fidel Cuba” US Army War College 2012
Going forward, there are several areas of ongoing security cooperation between ¶ the neighboring countries that
show promise. The first of these has been recurring meetings between military officers from both countries.
Initiated by the commander of the Guantanamo base, General John Sheehan, the military-to-military “fence-line
talks” initially provided a venue for both sides to workout practical common concerns surrounding the base.
64 Since his retirement, General Sheehan and other retired U.S. military officers expanded the bilateral
cooperation to include visits to Havana for ¶ discussions on “migration, drug trafficking, operating procedures
at the U.S. Naval Base Guantánamo Bay, U.S. military maneuvers, and other regular threats.” The talks ¶ reached
a surprising high-water mark in 2002 when Cuban military officers advocated ¶ for and Raúl Castro pronounced that
any Al Qaeda detainees that escaped into Cuba ¶ would be returned to the base. 65 In the absence of any formal
diplomatic ties between the countries, these cordial mil-to-mil engagements have proven a form of quiet
diplomacy and continue to “lay the groundwork for future cooperation and more peaceful transitions in the
U.S.-Cuban relations.”
Alt Causes
Multiple barriers to US-Cuban relations now – Dry Foot, Alan Gross, Terrorism List,
Arms Shipment
Riechmann 07/17
Deb The Associated Press won the Merriman Smith Award ’06, ‘13.“Cuba And U.S. Discuss Migration Issues To
Better Relations” AP 13 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/18/us-cuba-migration_n_3617242.html
WASHINGTON -- Migration issues headlined talks on Wednesday between the U.S. and Cuba, yet long-standing
disputes threaten efforts to thaw relations between the Cold War enemies.¶ In the one-day talks, Cuba repeated
its opposition to the United States' so-called wet-foot, dry-foot policy in which Cuban refugees reaching
American soil are allowed to stay while those stopped at sea are sent home. Cuba says the policy urges its citizens to
try to flee the island.¶ "Alien smuggling could not be eradicated nor a legal, safe and orderly migration between the
two countries could be achieved as long as the wet-foot, dry-foot policy and the Cuban Adjustment Act, which
encourage illegal migration and irregular entries of Cuban citizens into the United States, remain in force," the
delegation said in a statement. The act lets islanders who reach the United States stay and fast-tracks them for
residency.¶ American officials reiterated their call for the immediate release of a US Agency for International
Development worker, Alan Gross, imprisoned in Cuba since Dec. 3, 2009. Gross was working on a USAID
democracy-building program when he was arrested. Washington has said repeatedly that no major improvement
in relations can occur until he is released.¶ The migration talks were announced last month after Havana and
Washington wrapped up separate negotiations aimed at restarting direct mail service, which has been suspended
since 1963. Discussions about migration and mail – along with the relaxation of travel and remittance rules for
Cuban Americans – appeared to signal a thaw in chilly relations.¶ But two recent events – Cuba's backing of
National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden's bid for asylum and the interception of weapons hidden on
a ship that had sailed out of Cuba bound for North Korea – now pose new setbacks to warming relations.¶ Earlier
this month, Cuban President Raul Castro threw his support behind other Latin American governments willing to
give asylum to Snowden, who has since sought temporary asylum in Russia. Castro made no reference as to whether
Cuba itself would offer him refuge or safe passage. Snowden's simplest route to Latin America might be one of five
direct flights that Russian carrier Aeroflot operates to Havana each week. From there Snowden could fly to
Venezuela, Bolivia or Nicaragua, all possible destinations for him. ¶ On Tuesday Panamanian authorities seized a
14,000-ton ship with a cargo of missiles and other arms hidden under sacks of sugar. Cuba claimed the military
equipment was obsolete weaponry from the mid-20th century that it was sending to North Korea for repair. The
incident underscored concerns about Cuba's relationship with North Korea, which is in a standoff with the U.S. and
its allies for continuing to develop nuclear weapons.¶ Cuba's delegation to the migration talks said the discussion
took place in a "climate of respect" and said it was willing to hold more exchanges in the future. The delegation said
Cuba used the meeting to announce that the government of Cuba had ratified international protocols on migrant
smuggling and human trafficking. ¶ Marie Harf, deputy spokeswoman at the State Department, said the discussion
focused on the implementation of the 1994 and 1995 U.S.-Cuba migration accords. The talks are intended to
monitor adherence to a 16-year-old agreement under which the U.S. issues 20,000 visas to Cubans each year.
Wednesday marked the first time since January 2011 that the periodic talks have been held. ¶ "The U.S. delegation
highlighted areas of successful cooperation in migration, including advances in aviation safety and visa processing,
while also identifying actions needed to ensure that the goals of the accords are fully met, especially those having to
do with safeguarding the lives of intending immigrants," Harf said. ¶ Cuba, however, remains on the U.S. list of
state sponsors of terrorism, another sticking point in the migration talks. Havana denies any links to terrorism
and contends its inclusion on the list is a political vendetta.¶ Sen. Robert Menendez, chairman of the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee, called the shipment of weapons a "grave violation" of international treaties and called on
the Obama administration to submit the case to the U.N. Security Council for review. ¶ Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, a
Republican from Florida who is staunchly opposed to the Raul Castro government, urged the State Department to
call for U.N. Sanctions Committee inspectors to go to Panama and investigate whether North Korea and Cuba
have violated U.N. resolutions
Soft Power Advantage
Soft Power High
US Soft Power Strong Now—and non-Gitmo reasons for Decline
Wallin 13(Robert, writer for the American Security Project, 4-29-2013, “War of the Soft Powers”,
http://americansecurityproject.org/blog/2013/war-of-the-soft-powers/)
Despite the ebb and flow of American
Soft power since the turn of the century, it remains overall fairly strong. Nye contends that “ much
of America’s soft power is produced by civil society – everything from universities and foundations to
Hollywood and pop culture – not from the government.” While this is arguably true, I would not remove government as a major variable
in the soft power equation. Much of what Hollywood, academia, and civil society are able to do is enabled directly by
our principles of government. Certainly, what can only be described as dysfunction in the American government right now—
especially in regards to the fiscal situation—has an eroding effect on U.S. soft power. Though internal bickering may result in an inability to pass
a budget, no amount of cooperation gives Congress the ability pass a measure to requisition more soft power, or contract a company to design it. But it can pass
legislation that frees it to grow on its own. Rather than trying to “use” more soft power, Russia and China must first act to earn it. Moral leadership, technological
leadership, financial leadership, and foreign policy leadership and setting standards for individual rights are all factors that can help to increase soft power. In the case
of Russia and China, making more deliberate efforts to resolve issues on the international scene could make a difference. Russia should distance itself from its support
of the Assad regime in Syria. China should pursue diplomacy to resolve disputes in the South China Sea. Both countries should work to increase freedom of the
individual within their borders. That’s how you increase your soft power. For
America, technological and scientific leadership have
long been a strong factor in its soft power reserve. Yet we are at risk of losing this. For example, recent cuts in
fusion energy research—one of America’s most challenging, yet promising research fields—may cause this country to lag behind. Explaining
the harm this can cause, ASP’s Nick Cunningham and Theodore MacDonald recently wrote in AOL Energy today: As other countries invest more heavily in fusion
power, America’s leadership in this field will soon come to an end. Ceding a new high-tech industry to competitors will result in a decline in America’s competitive
edge, and its best and brightest scientists will be lured by more advanced facilities abroad. If America
wants to maintain its competitive edge
in soft power, it needs to take the action necessary to do it. That means continuing to make those scientific
breakthroughs that so many admire this nation for. That means continuing to uphold the principles
enshrined in our founding documents. Thus, it is in our interest to attract the best and brightest from overseas. Historically, those minds have
contributed greatly to all aspects of American society. And is it their contribution to building this country through their intellect and hard work in a framework of
economic and cultural freedom that forms the basis of American soft power. Are we in danger of losing our soft power edge to Russia and China? At this point, the
answer is no. Should we be frightened by their efforts to augment and enhance their soft power? The answer is also no. Soft power is not a zero-sum game—one
country cannot attack and weaken another’s soft power. The
only way America risks losing its soft power edge is by pursuing
negative actions and neglecting the very things that make it so strong.
Soft power is inevitable – solves for relations and overseas development
Janice Bially Mattern (Associate professor of I/R – Lehigh University), 07-15-09, Millennium Journal of
International Studies, “Why Soft Power Isn’t So Soft,”
http://www.academia.edu/1141856/Why_Soft_Power_Isnt_So_Soft_Representational_Force_and_the_Sociolinguist
ic_Construction_of_Attraction_in_World_Politics
Since 9/11, the Bush administration has consciously refashioned the American role in world politics from that of benign hegemon
to that of neo-imperialist. It has abandoned the ‘soft power’ politics of constructive engagement and multilateralism
in favour of the ‘hard power’ politics of the war on terrorism. But as the increasingly unpopular Iraq war runs headlong into rising
expenses and American causalities it is seen inevitable – and for many, preferable – that the US war on terrorism will
eventually have to rely much more on soft power political strategies. Understood as the ability to achieve desired
outcomes through attraction rather than coercion, soft power can, advocates claim, make allies out of Islamists, repair
US relationships with its disenchanted allies, and even put ‘third world’ states on the right path toward
development. In this way, soft power promises to be a means to success in world politics. Indeed, soft power is touted not just as a tool for the
US to use in its effort to right its relations, but as a tool that can be used by any country or any actor in world politics to
achieve a greater degree of influence over the dynamics of world politics
Global opinion of U.S. increasing now
Pew 13 (The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project conducts public opinion surveys around the world on a broad
array of subjects ranging from people’s assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and
important issues of the day. Over 330,000 interviews in 60 countries have been conducted as part of the project’s work.
“America’s Global Image Remains More Positive than China’s” http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/07/18/americas-global-imageremains-more-positive-than-chinas/)SJH
However, China’s increasing power has not led to more positive ratings for the People’s Republic. Overall, the U.S. enjoys a
stronger global image than China. Across the nations surveyed, a median of 63% express a favorable opinion of the U.S.,
compared with 50% for China. Globally, people are more likely to consider the U.S. a partner to their country than to see
China in this way, although relatively few think of either nation as an enemy. America is also seen as somewhat more willing than
China to consider other countries’ interests. Still, both of these world powers are widely viewed as acting unilaterally in international affairs. And
the military power of both nations worries many. China’s growing military strength is viewed with trepidation in neighboring Japan, South Korea, Australia and the
Philippines. Meanwhile, the Obama administration’s use of drone strikes faces broad opposition – half or more in 31 of 39 countries disapprove of U.S. drone attacks
Respecting individual liberty remains the strong suit of America’s image. Even in many nations
where opposition to American foreign policy is widespread and overall ratings for the U.S. are low, majorities or
pluralities believe individual rights are respected in the U.S. Across the nations surveyed, a median of 70% say the
American government respects the personal freedoms of its people. In contrast, a median of only 36% say this about China.
against extremist groups.
Balance of Power51Of course, attitudes toward the U.S. and China vary considerably across regions and countries. In Europe, the U.S. gets
mostly positive ratings. During the presidency of George W. Bush, anti-Americanism was common throughout much of Europe, but President
Barack Obama has been consistently popular among Europeans, and since he took office in 2009, Obama’s
popularity has given America’s image a significant boost in the region. Currently, more than six-in-ten in Italy,
Poland, France and Spain have a favorable opinion of the U.S. European perceptions of China are much less positive – among the
eight European Union nations polled, Greece is the only one in which a majority expresses a favorable view of China. Moreover, ratings for
China have declined significantly over the last two years in a number of EU countries, including Britain, France, Poland and Spain. As has been
the case in recent years, America’s image is the most negative in parts of the Muslim world, especially Pakistan (11% favorable), Jordan (14%),
Egypt (16%), and the Palestinian territories (16%). Only 21% of Turks see the U.S. positively, although this is actually a slight improvement
from last year’s 15%. But the Muslim world is hardly monolithic, and America receives largely positive ratings in predominantly
Muslim nations such as Senegal in West Africa and Indonesia and Malaysia in Southeast Asia. Elsewhere in the
Asia/Pacific region, the U.S. receives particularly favorable reviews in the Philippines, South Korea and Japan, and
a majority or plurality in all three countries say it is more important to have strong ties with the U.S. than with
China.
Squo Solves Perception
Progress is being made on giving trials out, negative perception from Islamists is not due to
military commissions
Meese 2012 (Edwin, the Ronald Reagan Distinguished Fellow in Public Policy and chairman of the Center for
Legal & Judicial Studies at the Heritage Foundation. He served as the 75th attorney general of the United States
under President Reagan, Guantanamo Bay prison is necessary, CNN,
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/11/opinion/meese-gitmo)
In the past, many Guantanamo detainees haven’t been given speedy trials. However, with President Obama
having finally re-authorized the military commission process, more progress toward bringing detainees to
trial will be made. That progress will illustrate America’s commitment to the rule of law and undercut
negative perceptions about Guantanamo. Contrary to popular opinion, anger toward Guantanamo amongst
Islamic populations is not driven by an inherent discomfort with military commissions, but rather by the
perception that Guantanamo is a black hole of permanent, un-reviewed detention.
Soft Power Alt Causes
Alt Cause—US not investing in Soft Power Efforts
Nye 13 (Joseph, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School
of Government, 3-27-2013, “Challenges to US Soft Power”)
The United States' most striking failure is the low priority and paucity of resources it has devoted to
producing soft power. The combined cost of the State Depart ment's public diplomacy programs and U.S.
international broadcasting is just over a billion dollars, about four percent FOREIGN AFFAIRS May/June2004 [19]
This content downloaded from 35.13.70.148 on Sat, 27 Jul 2013 20:43:56 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and
ConditionsJoseph S. Nye, Jr. of the nation's international affairs budget. That total is about three percent of what the
United States spends on intelligence and a quarter of one percent of its military budget. If Washington devoted just
one percent of its military spending to public diplomacy-in the words of Newton Minow, former head of the
Federal Com munications Commission, "one dollar to launch ideas for every loo dollars we invest to launch
bombs"-it would mean almost quadrupling the current budget.
American Soft Power Already lost over PRISM- aff is nonunique
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-for-american-soft-power/277015/)
In 1948, Harry Truman flip-flopped. After decades of holding racial biases, he decided to support the civil rights
movement against Jim Crow laws. Truman's shift was as much cold political calculation as anything else. The path
to 270 electoral college votes ran through northern cities with large African American populations and a few states
in the Deep South. The strategy worked. He carried Georgia, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas just as the Chicago
Daily Tribune went to press with "Dewey Defeats Truman." There was a foreign policy angle to Truman's civil
rights awakening, too. In the ideological battle pitting democracy against communism, the Soviet Union began
to churn out propaganda saying that Jim Crow proved America's inability to live up to its own fundamental
values on human rights. The argument was effective, argues Caley Robertson of Colby University: segregation
was frustrating the United States' attempts to export democracy during the Cold War. In other words, Jim Crow
was damaging America's soft power, defined by Harvard professor Joseph Nye as a country's ability to achieve its
aims through attraction rather than coercion. Which brings us to PRISM, the NSA program that collects metadata from Americans' telephone and online communications. I am a former Department of Defense intelligence
analyst. I have never used PRISM, and do not know if it existed during my tenure. However, I have used NSA
databases, and became aware of two ironclad truths about the agency: First, its data is a critical intelligence tool; and
second, that access to databases by non-NSA intelligence analysts is highly controlled. It's like buying drugs (so I'm
told): you need "a guy" on the inside who passes you the goods in the shadows, then disavows any connection to
you. In addition to being useful and tightly controlled, PRISM is, of course, legal by the letter of the law. Its
existence is primarily justified by the "business records" clause in the PATRIOT Act, and President Obama has
argued that the legislation has been authorized by "bipartisan majorities repeatedly," and that "it's important to
understand your duly elected representatives have been consistently informed on exactly what we're doing."
Salvation from excessive government snooping would seem to lie at the ballot box. Fair enough. But in the
immediate wake of September 11, Americans questioned little of what their government would do to keep them
safe. Just four months after the attacks in January 2002, Gallup reported that fully half of Americans would
support anti-terrorism measures even if they violated civil liberties. Times have changed. As soon as August
2003, Gallup found just 29 percent of Americans were willing to sacrifice civil liberties for security. By 2009, a
CBS poll concluded only 41 percent of Americans had even heard or read about the PATRIOT Act, and 45 percent
of those believed the law endangered their civil liberties. A Washington Post poll from April 2013--after the
Boston marathon attacks but before PRISM's disclosure-- found 48 percent of Americans feared the
government would go too far in compromising constitutional rights to investigate terrorism. And following
the Edward Snowden leaks, 58 percent were against the government collecting phone records. Not a total
reversal, but certainly trending in one direction. This shift has existed in a vacuum of public debate. Prior to the
PRISM leaks, the last time domestic government surveillance made headlines was in very late 2005 and early 2006,
following revelations that the Bush administration was wiretapping Americans without a warrant. Despite the
scandal, the PATRIOT Act was quickly reauthorized by March 2006. The Bush administration did announce the end
of warrantless wiretapping in 2007, and he moved the program under jurisdiction of the FISA court , a panel of
Supreme Court-appointed judges who approve domestic surveillance requests. To call the FISA court a rubber
stamp is an understatement. This year, it has rejected a grand total of 11 warrant requests out of--wait for it-33,996 applications since the Carter administration. The PATRIOT Act's reauthorization wouldn't come up again
until 2009. By then, public uproar over warrantless wiretapping had long since receded, and the year's debate played
out as a relatively quite inside-baseball scuffle between civil liberties groups and the Hill. When the law came up for
its next presidential signature in 2011, it was done quietly by autopen--a device that imitates Obama's John
Hancock--from France. Shifting attitudes and quiet reauthorization flies in the face of the standard the president has
set for himself. In a 2009 speech at the National Archives, Obama emphasized the importance of the consent of the
governed in security affairs, "I believe with every fiber of my being that in the long run we cannot keep this country
safe unless we enlist the power of our most fundamental values... My administration will make all information
available to the American people so that they can make informed judgments and hold us accountable." The
president's inability to live up to this ideal is particularly jarring as he defends PRISM. Following the leaks,
he's said he is pushing the intelligence community to release what it can, and rightly insists that the NSA is not
listening in on Americans' phone calls. Those are helpful steps, but should have been raised during the National
Archives speech just months into his administration, not six months into his second term. Director of National
Intelligence James Clapper continues to argue that disclosure of collection methods will give America's enemies a
"'playbook' to avoid detection." That's thin gruel. First, America's enemies are already aware of the NSA's extensive
electronic surveillance capabilities. That's why Osama Bin Laden and deceased al Qaeda in Iraq leader Abu Musab
al Zarqawi used a complex network of couriers rather than electronic communications. It's typical operational
security of truly dangerous operatives. Second, Obama stated as recently as late May that the threat from al Qaeda's
core operatives has decreased significantly, shifting to less deadly cells scattered throughout the Middle East and
North Africa. The lack of public debate, shifting attitudes towards civil liberties, insufficient disclosure, and a
decreasing terrorist threat demands that collecting Americans' phone and Internet records must meet the absolute
highest bar of public consent. It's a test the Obama administration is failing. This brings us back to Harry Truman
and Jim Crow. Even though PRISM is technically legal, the lack of recent public debate and support for
aggressive domestic collection is hurting America's soft power. The evidence is rolling in. The China Daily, an
English-language mouthpiece for the Communist Party, is having a field day, pointing out America's
hypocrisy as the Soviet Union did with Jim Crow. Chinese dissident artist Ai Wei Wei made the link explicitly,
saying "In the Soviet Union before, in China today, and even in the U.S., officials always think what they do is
necessary... but the lesson that people should learn from history is the need to limit state power." Even
America's allies are uneasy, at best. German Chancellor Angela Merkel grew up in the East German police state
and expressed diplomatic "surprise" at the NSA's activities. She vowed to raise the issue with Obama at this week's
G8 meetings. The Italian data protection commissioner said the program would "not be legal" in his country. British
Foreign Minister William Hague came under fire in Parliament for his government's participation. If
Americans supported these programs, our adversaries and allies would have no argument. As it is, the next time the
United States asks others for help in tracking terrorists, it's more likely than not that they will question
Washington's motives.
Drone Strikes are an Alt Cause—Pakistan
Afzal 13(Madiha, nonresident fellow Brookings Institute, 2-7-2013, Brookings Institute, “Drone Strikes and Anti-Americanism in Pakistan”,
http://www.brookings.edu/research/opinions/2013/02/07-drones-anti-americanism-pakistan-afzal)
drone strikes are infuriating the more moderate and liberal segments of Pakistani society
those who have traditionally been more sympathetic toward the United States
What is getting overlooked in the debate is that
,
. Imagine a group of well-educated people, many of whom attended English-language
schools, are widely exposed to American and Western media, and like and embrace many aspects of American culture. These people have probably had some sort of personal interaction with the West, through tourism, attending college abroad, or through family members or friends who live
What bothers this group about U.S. drone strikes, more than the attack on Pakistan’s sovereignty, is the
perceived American hypocrisy toward the importance of Pakistani lives and deaths.
coverage of a recent report on drone
strikes in Pakistan by researchers at NYU and Stanford law schools, which recounts the daily terror facing
those who live in areas where drones strike, gained wide circulation in Pakistan.
it bothers this liberal,
educated group of Pakistanis that the U.S. government does not release its own data on drone strikes.
Why does anger against
America from this group of liberal, educated Pakistanis matter?
These people
in the U.S.
Following the horrific school shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary in
December, a piece in the U.K. newspaper The Guardian titled “In the U.S., mass child killings are tragedies. In Pakistan, mere bug splats” went viral among educated Pakistanis. In addition,
Few cared to note that this report had been written by an advocacy group and
that some of its statistics were suspect. While the New America Foundation, the Long War Journal, and the London Bureau of Investigative Journalism all compile statistics on drone strikes, the numbers differ, and
One of the only public
acknowledgments on this issue was in a 2012 speech by John Brennan when he stated that there were barely any civilian deaths as a consequence of these strikes. This struck many as implausible, further angering Pakistanis.
After all, it is highly unlikely that any of these people will turn radical.
matter because they form the heart of an active civil society in Pakistan, which the U.S. counts on to serve as
a counterweight to the radical segments of Pakistani society. They work in the Pakistani government, media
and business sectors, and drone strikes are driving these people toward a constant distrust of the U.S. and
hardening their attitudes against America. It undermines all the positive work the United States is doing in
Pakistan, all the aid dollars it spends there, and drastically undercuts U.S. soft power in the region.
.
this group of Pakistanis
buys into the only narrative out there
that drone strikes are callously undertaken without any regard for civilian casualties.
If America loses these
hearts and minds, it will lose the battle for Pakistan Where does
get its information? It
, offered up by the outspokenly anti-
American Pakistani media, which argues
This view overinflates
the number of civilians killed by drone strikes, especially women and children, and underreports the number of militants killed. And without an official account of events from the U.S. government, this narrative can easily be exploited and promoted. Let’s take a look at some empirical
. According to
Pew Global Attitudes poll
evidence for the above statements
the 2011
, a representative survey of almost 2,000 Pakistanis, 55 percent of respondents had heard (a lot or a little) about drone attacks, up from 36
percent in 2010. A simple cross-tabulation of education and knowledge of drone strikes reveals that the percentage of Pakistanis with some knowledge about dr one strikes increases by education. In particular, more than 80 percent of the highly educated with graduate or post-graduate degrees
of Pakistanis with some knowledge about drone strikes, 95 percent think that
drones are “a bad or very bad thing”.
say they have heard about drone strikes. Also according to the Pew 2011 poll,
those
In addition, 69 percent of these respondents disagree that drone strikes are necessary to defend Pakistan from extremist groups, and 91 percent agree with the statement that they kill too many
innocent people.
U.S. soft power low now- Presidential opinions, Drone strikes and anti-terror efforts prove
Pew 12 (The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project conducts public opinion surveys around the world on a broad
array of subjects ranging from people’s assessments of their own lives to their views about the current state of the world and
important issues of the day. Over 330,000 interviews in 60 countries have been conducted as part of the project’s work. “Global
Opinion of Obama Slips, International Policies Faulted” http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/06/13/global-opinion-of-obama-slipsinternational-policies-faulted/) SJH
Global approval of President Barack Obama’s policies has declined significantly since he first took office, while
overall confidence in him and attitudes toward the U.S. have slipped modestly as a consequence. Europeans and Japanese remain largely
confident in Obama, albeit somewhat less so than in 2009, while Muslim publics remain largely critical. A similar pattern characterizes overall ratings for the U.S. – in
the EU and Japan, views are still positive, but the
U.S. remains unpopular in nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Turkey and Pakistan.
in the American president has declined by 24
percentage points and approval of his policies has fallen 30 points. Mexicans have also soured on his policies, and many fewer express
Meanwhile, support for Obama has waned significantly in China. Since 2009, confidence
confidence in him today. The Obama era has coincided with major changes in international perceptions of American power – especially U.S. economic power. The
global financial crisis and the steady rise of China have led many to declare China the world’s economic leader, and this trend is especially strong among some of
America’s major European allies. Today, solid majorities in Germany (62%), Britain (58%), France (57%) and Spain (57%) name China as the world’s top economic
power. Even though many think American economic clout is in relative decline, publics around the world continue to worry about how the U.S. uses its power – in
particular its military power – in international affairs.
There remains a widespread perception that the U.S. acts unilaterally and does
not consider the interests of other countries. In predominantly Muslim nations, American anti-terrorism efforts are
still widely unpopular. And in nearly all countries, there is considerable opposition to a major component of the
Obama administration’s anti-terrorism policy: drone strikes. In 17 of 20 countries, more than half disapprove of U.S.
drone attacks targeting extremist leaders and groups in nations such as Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.
American soft power in decline
Neu 13 (Richard Neu- B.S. in economics, California Institute of Technology; Ph.D. in economics, Harvard University; M.A.
in economics, Harvard University “U.S. 'Soft Power' Abroad Is Losing Its Punch” http://www.rand.org/blog/2013/02/us-softpower-abroad-is-losing-its-punch.html
The way America flexes it economic muscle around the world is changing dramatically—and not necessarily for the
better. In 1997, facing a wave of sovereign debt defaults, the International Monetary Fund asked its member states to pledge lines of credit to support Fund rescue
efforts. The United States and other nations did as asked. In 2009, the United States responded again to a call for expanded credit lines. When the Fund sought yet
another expansion of these credit lines last April, 39 countries, including China, Russia, Brazil, Mexico, India, and Saudi Arabia, stepped up. Even cash-strapped Italy
and Spain pledged support. But the United States was conspicuously absent. A pledge from the United States requires congressional authorization. In the midst of last
spring's contentious debate over U.S. government deficits and debts, support for an international body was a political nonstarter. Where the United States had
previously demonstrated international leadership, other countries—some of them America's rivals for international influence—now make the running. This is a small
example of what may be a troubling trend:
America's fiscal predicament and the seeming inability of its political system to
resolve these matters may be taking a toll on the instruments of U.S. “soft power” and on the country's ability to
shape international developments in ways that serve American interests. The most potent instrument of U.S. soft
power is probably the simple size of the U.S. economy. As the biggest economy in the world, America has a lot to
say about how the world works. But the economics profession is beginning to understand that high levels of public debt can slow economic growth,
especially when gross general government debt rises above 85 or 90 percent of GDP .The United States crossed that threshold in 2009, and the
negative effects are probably mostly out in the future. These will come at a bad time. The U.S. share of global
economic output has been falling since 1999—by nearly 5 percentage points as of 2011. As America's GDP share
declined, so did its share of world trade, which may reduce U.S. influence in setting the rules for international
trade.And it's not just the debt itself that may be slowing GDP growth. Economists at Stanford and the University of Chicago have
demonstrated that uncertainty about economic policy—on the rise as a result of political squabbling over U.S. fiscal policy—typically foreshadows slower economic
growth.
GITMO Doesn’t Solve
Multiple Factors Account for Loss of US Soft Power—Gitmo Not enough
Nye 13 (Joseph, former Assistant Secretary of Defense and Dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, 3-272013, “Challenges to US Soft Power”)
Autocratic regimes in the Middle East have eradicated their liberal opposition, and radical Islamists are in most cases the only dissenters
left. They feed on anger toward corrupt regimes, opposition to U.S. policies, and popular fears of
modernization. Liberal democracy, as they portray it, is full of corruption, sex, and violence-an impression
reinforced by American movies and television and often exacerbated by the extreme statements of some
especially virulent Christian preachers in the United States. Nonetheless, the situation is not hopeless. Although
modernization and American values can be disruptive, they also bring education, jobs, better health care, and a range of new opportunities.
Indeed, polls show that much of the Middle East craves the benefits of trade, globalization, and improved communications. American technology
is widely admired, and American culture is often more attractive than U .S. policies. Given such widespread (albeit ambivalent) moderate views,
there is still a chance of isolating the extremists. Democracy, however, cannot be imposed by force. The outcome in Iraq will be of
crucial importance, but success will also depend on policies that open regional economies, reduce bureaucratic
controls, speed economic growth, improve educational systems, and encourage the types of gradual political
changes currently taking place in small countries such as Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait, and Morocco. The
development of intellectuals, social groups ,and, eventually, countries that show that liberal democracy is not
inconsistent with Muslim culture will have a beneficial effect like that of Japan and South Korea, which showed that
democracy could coexist with indigenous Asian values. But this demonstration effect will take time-and the skillful
deployment of soft-power resources by the United States in concert with other democracies, nongovernmental
organizations, and the United Nations.
Soft Power Fails
American Soft Power Fails- Multiple Warrants
JOFFE 2006 (JOSEF is also the Marc and Anita Abramowitz Fellow in International Relations at the Hoover
Institution and a courtesy professor of political science at Stanford University. Since 1999, he has been an associate
of the Olin Institute for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. “The Perils of Soft
Power”http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/14/magazine/14wwln_lede.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) SJH
In recent years, a number of American thinkers, led by Joseph S. Nye Jr. of Harvard, have argued that the United States should rely more on what he calls its "soft
power" — the contagious appeal of its ideas, its culture and its way of life — and so rely less on the "hard power" of its stealth bombers and aircraft carriers. There is
one problem with this argument: soft
power does not necessarily increase the world's love for America. It is still power,
and it can still make enemies. America's soft power isn't just pop and schlock; its cultural clout is both high
and low. It is grunge and Google, Madonna and MoMA, Hollywood and Harvard. If two-thirds of the movie marquees carry an American title in Europe
(even in France), dominance is even greater when it comes to translated books. The figure for Germany in 2003 was 419 versus 3,732; that is, for every German book
translated into English, nine English-language books were translated into German. It used to be the other way around. A hundred years ago, Humboldt University in
Berlin was the model for the rest of the world. Tokyo, Johns Hopkins, Stanford and the University of Chicago were founded in conscious imitation of the German
university and its novel fusion of teaching and research. Today Europe's universities have lost their luster, and as they talk reform, they talk American. Indeed,
America is one huge global "demonstration effect," as the sociologists call it. The Soviet Union's cultural presence in Prague, Budapest and Warsaw vanished into thin
air the moment the last Russian soldier departed. American
culture, however, needs no gun to travel. There may be little or no
relationship between America's ubiquity and its actual influence. Hundreds of millions of people around the
world wear, listen, eat, drink, watch and dance American, but they do not identify these accouterments of
their daily lives with America. A Yankees cap is the epitome of things American, but it hardly signifies
knowledge of, let alone affection for, the team from New York or America as such. The same is true for
American films, foods or songs. Of the 250 top-grossing movies around the world, only four are foreign-made: "The Full Monty" (U.K.), "Life Is
Beautiful" (Italy) and "Spirited Away" and "Howl's Moving Castle" (Japan); the rest are American, including a number of co-productions. But these American
If the relationship is not neutral, it is
one of repulsion rather than attraction — the dark side of the "soft power" coin. The European student
movement of the late 1960's took its cue from the Berkeley free-speech movement of 1964, the inspiration for
all post-1964 Western student revolts. But it quickly turned anti-American; America was reviled while it was
copied. Now shift forward to the Cannes Film Festival of 2004, where hundreds of protesters denounced America's intervention in Iraq until the police dispersed
products shape images, not sympathies, and there is little, if any, relationship between artifact and affection.
them. The makers of the movie "Shrek 2" had placed large bags of green Shrek ears along the Croisette, the main drag along the beach. As the demonstrators
scattered, many of them put on free Shrek ears. "They were attracted," noted an observer in this magazine, "by the ears' goofiness and sheer recognizability." And so
Between Vietnam and Iraq,
America's cultural presence has expanded into ubiquity, and so has the resentment of America's soft power.
In some cases, like the French one, these feelings harden into governmental policy. And so the French have passed the Toubon law, which
the enormous pull of American imagery went hand in hand with the country's, or at least its government's, condemnation.
prohibits on pain of penalty the use of English words — make that D.J. into a disque-tourneur. In 1993, the French coaxed the European Union into adding a "cultural
exception" clause to its commercial treaties exempting cultural products, high or low, from normal free-trade rules. Other European nations impose informal quotas on
American TV fare[………]PG2There
is a moral in this tale of two critics: the curse of soft power. In the affairs of nations,
too much hard power ends up breeding not submission but resistance. Likewise, great soft power does not bend
hearts; it twists minds in resentment and rage. And the target of Europe's cultural guardians is not just America, the Great Seductress. It is
also all those "little people," a million in all, many of whom showed up in the wee hours to snag an admissions ticket to MoMA's Berlin exhibit. By yielding to
America-the-beguiling, they committed cultural treason — and worse: they ignored the stern verdict of their own priesthood. So America's
not only seductive but also subversive.
soft power is
Soft Power Not Key
Soft Power Not Key
(Gideon, correspondent Financial Times, 6-1-2009,
Mr Obama is also running up against the limits of soft power elsewhere. Closing the prison camp at Guantánamo
was meant to be the ultimate tribute to soft power over hard power. The Obama team argued consistently that the damage
that Guantánamo did to America’s image in the world outweighed any security gains from holding al-Qaeda prisoners there. Yet, faced with
the backlash against releasing the remaining 240 prisoners or imprisoning them in the US, the Obama
administration has back-tracked. It is not clear whether Guantánamo will be closed on schedule or what will
happen to the riskier-sounding prisoners, who may still be held indefinitely. The much-criticised military trials are likely to be
revived. In Afghanistan, Mr Obama is trying a mixture of hard and soft power. There will be a military surge – but also a
“civilian surge”, designed to build up civil society and governance in Afghanistan. Old hands in Washington
are beginning to shake their heads and mutter about Vietnam. Mr Obama’s preferred tools of diplomacy,
engagement and charm do not seem to be of much use with Kim Jong-il of North Korea, either. The North Koreans have
just tested a nuclear weapon – leaving the Obama administration scratching its head about what to do. The president’s charisma and rhetorical
skill are real diplomatic assets. If Mr Obama can deploy them to improve America’s image and influence around the world, that is all to the good.
There is nothing wrong with trying to re-build American “soft power”. The danger is more subtle. It is that President Yes-we-can has
raised exaggerated hopes about the pay-off from engagement and diplomacy. In the coming months it will
become increasingly obvious that soft power also has its limits.
A2: Middle Peace Impact
International pressure means Israel has to engage in talks, but won’t work for a solution
Vick 7-25 (Karl, Jerusalem Bureau Chief for Time, “The Illusion of Progress: 9 Reasons Why Israeli-Palestinian
Talks Might Fail,” Time World, 2013, http://world.time.com/2013/07/25/the-illusion-of-peace-9-reasons-why-newisrael-palestinian-talks-may-fail/)
5. Where’s the buy-in? For both sides, the incentives to talk are far more apparent than any appetite to reach a
solution. For Israel, even nonproductive talks serve to keep at bay the pressure of world opinion, which in the
absence of formal negotiations tends to focus on Israel’s creeping takeover of the West Bank with its
settlements, which is the kind of attention Israel dislikes. The same day Kerry announced a “framework for
talks,” the European Union published rules barring EU funding to Israeli entities operating in the
settlements. More alarming, September brings the annual convocation at the United Nations, where the
Palestinians were preparing to exercise diplomatic and legal options aimed at dragging Israel before the
International Criminal Court. “If Kerry does not come up with something that really meets our minimum, then we
will move from negotiation strategy to confrontation strategy,” Shtayyeh, the close adviser to Abbas, told me last
month. ”I don’t mean military,” he added, and pointed instead toward the UN, where Palestinian statehood was
recognized last year. “That’s where our next confrontation with Israel is, I think.” Netanyahu insists his motives for
talks are driven by the real need for peace. And a deal would have him remembered for something besides serving
longer as prime minster than anyone since Israel’s founder, David Ben Gurion. But skeptics note that Netanyahu’s
party’s charter calls for Israel to keep the West Bank, not make it part of a Palestinian state. “Netanyahu
knows that without negotiations you can’t maintain the status quo,” says liberal parliamentarian Merav
Michaeli, of the Labor Party. “What he wants is negotiations that don’t go anywhere and don’t change reality as
we know it.” Michaeli spoke in late April, when the new Secretary of State had only been to the region a couple of
times, trying to coax both sides into talks that neither seemed to want—a situation she called dangerous, give the
letdown that usually follows a collapse. “It’s better not to start another round of hopelessness,” she said.
Palestinian liberals understand the problem. “What happened is it looks like the peace process is a substitute
for peace,” says Mustafa Bargouthi, a Ramallah physician and activist. “That’s not what we want. We need
something that produces results.”
Solvency
GITMO Safest
GITMO most secure place for detainees, if shut down detainees moved to Illinois-threatens
US safety
Bellinger et. Al 10 (John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law,
CFR; former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Shayana Kadidal, Senior Managing Attorney,
Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative, Center for Constitutional Rights Clifford D. May, President, Foundation for
Defense of Democracies William Yeomans, Fellow in Law and Government, Washington College of Law,
American University; former Chief Counsel to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Judiciary Committee, “Should
Guantanamo Bay Be Closed?,” Council on Foreign Relations, January 21, 2010, http://www.cfr.org/humanrights/should-guantanamo-bay-closed/p21247). SS
On January 22, 2009, President Obama ordered the controversial prison camp at Guantanamo Bay closed within a year. But much has changed since the president set this self-imposed deadline.
the Obama administration proposed moving some of the remaining Guantanamo inmates to a rural
state prison in Illinois. Earlier this month, the president reiterated his vow to close the camp, despite ordering a suspension of transfers to Yemen following evidence that the
In December,
suspect in the Christmas Day airliner bombing plot received al-Qaeda training there. Roughly ninety of the remaining 198 prisoners are Yemeni nationals. Now, as Obama's twelve-month
milestone comes due, legal experts are refining their arguments on the future of Guantanamo Bay. Clifford May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues that 2009
and Obama should acknowledge he "cannot close Guantanamo anytime soon."
changed everything,
CFR Adjunct Fellow John B.
Bellinger III counters that the prison remains a stain on U.S. values and must be closed. Constitutional Rights attorney Shayana Kadidal writes that refusing to release men who have already been
cleared "is absolutely unconscionable." And William Yeomans, a former legal adviser to the late Senator Edward M. Kennedy, suggests not only should Guantanamo be shuttered, it should be
converted into a "base for Haitian relief and development." -- Greg Bruno, Staff Writer, CFR.org John B. Bellinger III, Adjunct Senior Fellow for International and National Security Law, CFR;
former legal adviser to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice President Obama has not only missed his self-imposed one-year deadline to close Guantanamo but will likely not be able to shutter
the prison in 2010, and possibly not even during the next three years. Politically gun-shy Democratic majorities are unlikely to vote to move the Guantanamo detainees into the United States
If the United States
is going to detain a large number of al-Qaeda and Taliban members for a long period of time (which is both
probable and necessary), it is certainly true that Guantanamo is a good place to do it. Guantanamo's initial
operational problems have long been worked out, and the prison is now expertly run by the military in a
humane way that is consistent with international legal standards. The detainees would likely be worse off if
moved to a Supermax prison. Moreover, although it is unlikely that detainees would be able to escape from a mainland prison or that such a facility could be attacked by
other al-Qaeda terrorists, holding the detainees on an island in the Caribbean is certainly the most physically secure
option. On balance, Guantanamo does the American people more harm than good. It has come to symbolize abuse of Muslim prisoners and serves as a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda.
during an election year, and may be unwilling to do so at all. But this does not mean that President Obama should not continue his efforts to close the prison.
Then why close the prison? On balance, Guantanamo does the American people more harm than good. It has come to symbolize abuse of Muslim prisoners and serves as a powerful recruiting
tool for al-Qaeda. It also undermines vital counterterrorism cooperation from our Western allies, who view the prison as inconsistent with their own and U.S. values. It has proved impossible to
shake these unfair perceptions. It is unlikely that the United States will want to keep Guantanamo open for another fifty to sixty years (even if it holds some detainees that long), and President
Obama should instead continue to press Congress and our allies to help close it in an orderly way. Shayana Kadidal, Senior Managing Attorney, Guantanamo Global Justice Initiative, Center for
Constitutional Rights Both presidential candidates in 2008 promised to close Guantanamo. They did so because, as President Obama has repeatedly reaffirmed, doing so will make our nation
safer. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora testified to the Senate, "the first and second [leading] causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq--as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting
insurgent fighters into combat--are, respectively, the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo." None of that changed with the attempted bombing of Flight 253. The Nigerian student bomber
had allegedly trained in Yemen, supposedly with a group that included two released Saudi Guantanamo detainees. But the Saudis had been released by the Bush administration, not by court order
or after the sort of cautious, formal assessment that President Obama's Inter-Agency Task Force is undertaking now, but based purely on political and diplomatic expediency. Opportunistic calls
to keep Guantanamo open into its ninth year (or simply move it onshore) will do nothing to make America safer. One of them had already turned himself in months ago, and told the BBC from
custody that he joined the group because of horrific abuse he suffered at Bagram and Guantanamo. Perhaps the Nigerian student--by all accounts from a secular, educated, well-off family--was
motivated by these stories as well. Ironically, the intelligence agencies' failure to follow up specific leads that could have averted the Christmas bombing has led to calls for more of the same
counterproductive policies--assigning guilt and suspicion by religion and nationality--that will ensure that foreigners perceive the United States as their enemy and that good leads will be buried
in a haystack of bad leads generated by over-broad profiling. Guantanamo was filled by just such failed policies. Most of the detainees were not captured by our military on any battlefield, but
seized in broad profiling sweeps and sold to the United States in exchange for substantial bounties. The vast majority should never have been detained in the first place. To refuse to release men
who have already been cleared by the task force or the courts is absolutely unconscionable. Opportunistic calls to keep Guantanamo open into its ninth year (or simply move it onshore) will do
nothing to make America safer. Clifford D. May, President, Foundation for Defense of Democracies No doubt, al-Qaeda does utilize Guantanamo as a recruiting tool. However, al-Qaeda was
recruiting terrorists long before there was a Gitmo--the attacks of 9/11/01 represent only the most lethal example. More to the point: Whatever public diplomacy advantage may be achieved by
closing the facility would be offset by the damage done to national security. Of the 198 detainees remaining at Guantanamo, 91 are from Yemen, where al-Qaeda has been active, not least
training terrorists to blow up American passenger jets. President Obama has rightly decided not to send additional detainees from Gitmo to Yemen. Where else can they go? Not to any country
where they might face summary execution or torture. And none of our Democratic allies are eager to have these individuals arrive on their shores. President Obama cannot close Guantanamo
anytime soon. He should acknowledge that reality. The option of bringing them to the United States also is unappealing. For one, they would immediately be granted the same constitutional
rights as any American citizen. For another, setting up a new facility for them would be costly, not to mention a waste of the investment made at Gitmo. Indeed, if anyone wants to bet that
Congress, in an election year, will appropriate funds to bring terrorists to America, my money is on the table. In other words, President Obama cannot close Guantanamo anytime soon. He should
acknowledge that reality. He should explain that his top priority is to protect American citizens. He should add that, under current management, Guantanamo is superior to any comparable
Its primary purpose is to keep enemy combatants off the battlefield. It achieves that--while
providing healthy food, superb medical care, and clean housing to individuals who will slaughter Americans
by the thousands if they ever get the chance. If al-Qaeda wants to use that for its recruitment drives, let them. William Yeomans, Fellow in Law and
facility anywhere in the world.
Government, Washington College of Law, American University; former Chief Counsel to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Senate Judiciary Committee President Obama must fulfill his
commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Indeed, he should convert the facility from a symbol of America's lawless abuse of detainees into a beacon of humanitarian
compassion by embracing its use as a base for Haitian relief and development. The justification for closing Guantanamo remains undiminished. The facility was established as an extra-legal
black hole for Muslim men, some of whom were dangerous, but most of whom had simply been in the wrong place or were turned over for bounty. Men disappeared into Guantanamo and were
denied all access to justice until determined advocates convinced courts to recognize their rights. Guantanamo damaged our national security by tarnishing America's standing in the world and
serving as a powerful recruiting tool for terrorists. President Obama correctly recognized that restoring America's strength required eliminating this blight on our ideals. His retraction of that
promise would be calamitous. President Obama correctly recognized that restoring America's strength required eliminating this blight on our ideals. His retraction of that promise would be
calamitous. The president's recognition that Yemen is a breeding ground for terrorists should not affect his commitment to close Guantanamo. The temporary moratorium on returning detainees
to Yemen will simply require moving to the mainland some additional detainees who are already considered sufficiently non-threatening to be released. Whether detainees are in Guantanamo or
Illinois, the administration will face the same decisions on whether and how to try them. Congress should support the president's instruction to obtain and outfit the corrections center in Thomson,
Illinois. Maximum security federal facilities have long housed terrorists without incident. These facilities are secure from escape from within and penetration from without.
The
president must not falter, and Congress must not again succumb to the politics of fear. Together, they should
act quickly to turn a stain on our national soul into a vibrant symbol of hope and renewal.
Key to Regional Security
Guantanamo key to regional security
Berrigan, 2008 (Frida Berrigan, Senior Research Associate at the World Policy Institute’s Arms Trade Resource
Center. A graduate of Hampshire College in Amherst, Massachusetts, Frida spent six months as an editorial intern at
the Nation magazine before joining the World Policy Institute in early 1999, “Guantanamo: The Bigger Picture”,
New America Foundation, March 17, 2008, http://www.newamerica.net/node/9077)
Navy Commander Jeffery D. Gordon explains that the U.S. presence at Guantanamo serves "a vital role in
Caribbean regional security, protection from narco-trafficking and terrorism and safeguards against mass
migration attempts in unseaworthy craft." The Navy’s Atlantic fleet is based there and the base is described as
being "on the front lines of the battle for regional security."
New Facilities Turn
Plan is irrelevant- Two reasons
A. Closing Guantanamo only leads to more facilities like it
Cohen et al. 2005 (Jack Spencer; Director, Roe Institute, Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.; Senior Research Fellow for Russian and
Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, James
Phillips; Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, and Alane Kochems; Policy Analyst, National Security, The Heritage
Founda tion, “No Good Reason To Close Gitmo” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/06/no-good-reason-to-closegitmo)
The function of Guantanamo Bay will be served somewhere. Closing Guantanamo will not
relieve the United States from needing a facility to house and interrogate suspected
terrorists. Should Guantanamo close, the government would have to relocate these
functions. If there are problems with the detainment center, those problems should be
transparently addressed. The Pentagon has taken great pains to ensure that all appropriate domestic and international agencies
have adequate access to the facilities and has been responsive to credible allegations of abuse. Unlike in the tyrannical or
regimes of North Korea or China, for example, alleged abuses of prisoners are investigated
and those found guilty are held responsible. Moreover, there are established avenues by
which Congress, the International Committee of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and the
media exercise differing degrees of oversight in Guantanamo. Changing locations now
would lead to a transition period during which these organizations would have less access
than they do today.
B. There is no legal difference in the facilities
Cohen et al. 2005 (Jack Spencer; Director, Roe Institute, Ariel Cohen, Ph.D.; Senior Research Fellow for Russian and
Eurasian Studies and International Energy Policy, The Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, James
Phillips; Senior Research Fellow for Middle Eastern Affairs, and Alane Kochems; Policy Analyst, National Security, The Heritage
Founda tion, “No Good Reason To Close Gitmo” http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2005/06/no-good-reason-to-closegitmo)
Changing the physical location of the detainees is not legally significant. Neither the
detainees nor the United States stand to gain significantly in the legal arena if the detention
center at Guantanamo Bay is closed. The "illegal enemy combatants" held at the facility
have access to U.S. courts (as held by the Supreme Court in Rasul v. Bush[5]). Detainees have been making much use of
their access to legal counsel, as evidenced, for example, by a November 2004 District Court opinion holding that the Bush
Administration had overstepped its authority in several areas. Moving the detainees within the continental
United States will not give them additional rights because Guantanamo Bay is already
considered sufficiently under U.S. control to provide rights to them.[6] After the Rasul opinion, the detainees and
the U.S. government will have the same legal advantages and disadvantages within the U.S. as they do at Guantanamo Bay. There
are no compelling legal reasons to move the detainees and close Guantanamo Bay.
Ext. Legal Status
Closing Guantanamo won't change the legal situation of the detainees
Nemish 2009 (Mark C., A major in the US airforce. “To Close or Not to Close: Guantanamo Bay” April 2009.
http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA539847)
Another concern for the anti-Guantanamo Bay protesters is the legal rights and due
process afforded the detainees. These people believe that in order to give detainees a fair
trial using untainted evidence, all legal processed must occur in the U.S. judicial system. In
actuality, Guantanamo Bay will not gain any more legal sufficiency by moving to the U.S.
than it currently has. As reviewed earlier, there were errors executive decision making throughout the history of Guantanamo Bay
with regard to detainee classification and military tribunals. Those issues indeed require correction. However, correcting the
legal complications does not require the detainees to move anywhere. Once revamped, the
detainees can enjoy their due process in the U.S. legal system while remaining detained at Guantanamo Bay. The
government can simply transport the detainee to any trial appearances on an as-needed basis. Moving the detainees will
not necessarily give them more rights
Illinois
Obama bought prison in Illinois for transferring Gitmo inmates
Fox News, 2012 (Fox News, “Lawmakers claim administration opening door to Gitmo transfer with Illinois
prison buy”, Fox News, 10/2/12, http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/02/lawmakers-claim-administrationopening-door-to-gitmo-transfer-with-illinois/)
The Obama administration plans to buy an Illinois prison that at one point was considered for housing
Guantanamo prisoners -- with Republican lawmakers now claiming the purchase would open the door for
ultimately carrying out the Guantanamo transfer. Administration officials, though, denied that they were looking
for a new home for Guantanamo inmates. They insisted the decision to buy Thomson Correctional Center, an underused state prison 150 miles west of Chicago, was a move to alleviate overcrowding and create jobs in the process.
"This is about public safety and 50 percent overcrowding in high-security prisons," one Justice Department official
said. Officials insisted Guantanamo detainees would not be coming to Illinois. But Virginia Republican Rep.
Frank Wolf, among the lawmakers who opposed the federal purchase of the prison, claimed Tuesday that the
Obama administration could still carry out its plan -- perhaps by moving prisoners from another federal
prison to Thomson, and then using that prison to house Guantanamo detainees. "The president says his goal
is to shut down Guantanamo Bay and move the prisoners here," Wolf told Fox News, accusing the
administration of circumventing Congress. "This gives him a great opportunity to do it, particularly right
after the election." Wolf chairs a key House subcommittee overseeing the sale. He was referring to Obama's
pledge immediately after taking office that he would shut down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp -- a pledge
that stands as one of the president's most glaring unfulfilled promises to his base. The move to transfer
prisoners stateside, though, was met with a fierce backlash among some lawmakers, who worried it would
pose a security risk. The Obama administration and Federal Bureau of Prisons is now going ahead with the $165
million purchase of the Illinois prison, strictly as a move to ease overcrowding, they say. The move was first
announced by Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin and Gov. Pat Quinn. "This historic action will lead to the
creation of hundreds of construction jobs and over 1,000 permanent jobs at this federal facility," Durbin said in a
statement. "After facing a political standoff in the House of Representatives, I went directly to the president and
asked him to take this action." Quinn called it "excellent news." House Appropriations Committee Chairman Hal
Rogers, R-Ky., warned his committee would oppose the purchase. "The Obama administration has been
trying for years to open Thompson prison in order to transfer terrorists from Guantanamo Bay onto U.S.
soil," Rogers said. "This back-door move by the Obama administration to open Thompson and reject the will
of Congress and the American people is dangerously irresponsible and will be met with the full and
unfettered opposition of the Appropriations Committee." Thomson was built in 2001, but budget troubles kept
it from fully opening. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Illinois prison would still hold inmates indefinitely
Slevin, 2009 (Peter Slevin, a national political correspondent for The Washington Post. He has spent the past six
years exploring politics and the themes and personalities that animate the national debate. In Chicago and on the
campaign trial, he helped chronicle the rise of Barack Obama and he has written extensively about the home front of
the Iraq and Afghan wars. Previously, Slevin covered foreign policy for The Post and spent seven years in Europe
for The Miami Herald covering the collapse of the Soviet empire, “Illinois prison picked for detainees”, Washington
Post, 12/16/09, http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-12-16/news/36834397_1_thomson-correctional-centerillinois-prison-guantanamo-bay)
CHICAGO -- President Obama, determined to change U.S. detention policy and shut the prison at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, pointed Tuesday to a small town in Illinois as a big part of the answer. A state
prison in rural Thomson will be purchased and refitted to house dozens of terrorism suspects now held at
Guantanamo Bay, the administration announced. But Obama immediately drew criticism that revealed just how
controversial the issue remains. Republicans in Illinois and in Washington called the president's move risky and
reminded the administration that a congressional vote is required before detainees not facing trial can be held
indefinitely on U.S. soil. GOP members of the House will "seek every remedy at our disposal to stop this dangerous
plan," vowed Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio). A vote is weeks or months away, Democrats said. Civil
liberties groups, while embracing the goal of closing Guantanamo Bay, said the administration would be wrong to
move prisoners to the heartland without charging them with a crime. "If Thomson will be used to facilitate their
lawful prosecution, then this is truly a positive step," said Joanne Mariner, counterterrorism director at
Human Rights Watch. If not, "President Obama will simply have moved Guantanamo to Illinois." White
House officials did not say how many inmates are likely to be transferred to the Thomson Correctional
Center. Some detainees will be held for trial by military commissions on the prison grounds, while others
could be held without charges. "We are trying to get to zero here with the detainees," one administration official
said, referring to the prison in Cuba. "If we have to detain any without trial, we will only do so as a last resort." The
official said individual cases will be subject to oversight by Congress and the federal courts. The Thomson decision
alone will not get Obama to his goal of shutting Guantanamo Bay, which became a symbol of what critics said was
the Bush administration's willingness to flout international conventions. But the plan is another piece of a puzzle that
includes the prospective departure of 116 detainees recommended for release by an interagency team led by Justice
Department prosecutors. The administration also announced last month that several suspects will be tried in New
York federal court and others by the military.
Even if Gitmo closes, new Gitmo would open in Illinois
Greenwald, 2012 (Glenn Greenwald, a former Constitutional and civil rights litigator and is the author of three
New York Times Bestselling books: two on the Bush administration's executive power and foreign policy abuses,
and his latest book, With Liberty and Justice for Some, an indictment of America's two-tiered system of justice.
Greenwald was named by The Atlantic as one of the 25 most influential political commentators in the nation. He is
the recipient of the first annual I.F. Stone Award for Independent Journalism, and is the winner of the 2010 Online
Journalism Association Award for his investigative work on the arrest and oppressive detention of Bradley
Manning, “The Obama GITMO myth”, Salon, 7/23/12, http://www.salon.com/2012/07/23/the_obama_gitmo_myth/)
The New York Times Editorial Page today denounced these new rules as “spiteful,” cited it as “the Obama
administration’s latest overuse of executive authority,” and said “the administration looks as if it is imperiously
punishing detainees for their temerity in bringing legal challenges to their detention and losing.” Detainee lawyers
are refusing to submit to these new rules and are asking a federal court to rule that they violate the detainees’ right to
legal counsel. But every time the issue of ongoing injustices at Guantanamo is raised, one hears the same
apologia from the President’s defenders: the President wanted and tried to end all of this, but Congress —
including even liberals such as Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders — overwhelming voted to deny him the
funds to close Guantanamo. While those claims, standing alone, are true, they omit crucial facts and thus paint a
wildly misleading picture about what Obama actually did and did not seek to do. What made Guantanamo
controversial was not its physical location: that it was located in the Caribbean Sea rather than on American soil
(that’s especially true since the Supreme Court ruled in 2004 that U.S. courts have jurisdiction over the camp). What
made Guantanamo such a travesty — and what still makes it such — is that it is a system of indefinite detention
whereby human beings are put in cages for years and years without ever being charged with a crime.
President Obama’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo” — even if it had been approved in full by Congress
— did not seek to end that core injustice. It sought to do the opposite: Obama’s plan would have continued
the system of indefinite detention, but simply re-located it from Guantanamo Bay onto American soil. Long
before, and fully independent of, anything Congress did, President Obama made clear that he was going to
preserve the indefinite detention system at Guantanamo even once he closed the camp. President Obama fully
embraced indefinite detention — the defining injustice of Guantanamo — as his own policy . In February,
2009, the Obama DOJ told an appellate court it was embracing the Bush DOJ’s theory that Bagram detainees have
no legal rights whatsoever, an announcement that shocked the judges on the panel hearing the case. In May, 2009,
President Obama delivered a speech at the National Archives — in front of the U.S. Constitution — and, as his plan
for closing Guantanamo, proposed a system of preventative “prolonged detention” without trial inside the U.S.; The
New York Times – in an article headlined “President’s Detention Plan Tests American Legal Tradition” – said
Obama’s plan “would be a departure from the way this country sees itself, as a place where people in the grip of the
government either face criminal charges or walk free.” In January, 2010, the Obama administration announced it
would continue to imprison several dozen Guantanamo detainees without any charges or trials of any kind,
including even a military commission, on the ground that they were “too difficult to prosecute but too
dangerous to release.” That was all Obama’s doing, completely independent of anything Congress did. When
the President finally unveiled his plan for “closing Guantanamo,” it became clear that it wasn’t a plan to
“close” the camp as much as it was a plan simply to re-locate it — import it — onto American soil, at a
newly purchased federal prison in Thompson, Illinois . William Lynn, Obama’s Deputy Defense Secretary, sent
a letter to inquiring Senators that expressly stated that the Obama administration intended to continue
indefinitely to imprison some of the detainees with no charges of any kind. The plan was classic Obama: a
pretty, feel-good, empty symbolic gesture (get rid of the symbolic face of Bush War on Terror excesses) while
preserving the core abuses (the powers of indefinite detention ), even strengthening and expanding those abuses
by bringing them into the U.S. Recall that the ACLU immediately condemned what it called the President’s plan
to create “GITMO North.” About the President’s so-called “plan to close Guantanamo,” Executive Director
Anthony Romero said: The creation of a “Gitmo North” in Illinois is hardly a meaningful step forward. Shutting
down Guantánamo will be nothing more than a symbolic gesture if we continue its lawless policies onshore.
Alarmingly, all indications are that the administration plans to continue its predecessor’s policy of indefinite
detention without charge or trial for some detainees, with only a change of location. Such a policy is
completely at odds with our democratic commitment to due process and human rights whether it’s occurring in Cuba
or in Illinois. In fact, while the Obama administration inherited the Guantánamo debacle, this current move is its
own affirmative adoption of those policies. It is unimaginable that the Obama administration is using the same
justification as the Bush administration used to undercut centuries of legal jurisprudence and the principle of
innocent until proven guilty and the right to confront one’s accusers. . . . .The Obama administration’s
announcement today contradicts everything the president has said about the need for America to return to leading
with its values. In fact, Obama’s “close GITMO” plan — if it had been adopted by Congress — would have done
something worse than merely continue the camp’s defining injustice of indefinite detention. It would likely
have expanded those powers by importing them into the U.S. The day after President Obama’s speech
proposing a system of “prolonged detention” on U.S. soil, the ACLU’s Ben Wizner told me in an interview: It may
to serve to enshrine into law the very departures from the law that the Bush administration led us on, and that we all
criticized so much. And I’ll elaborate on that. But that’s really my initial reaction to it; that what President Obama
was talking about yesterday is making permanent some of the worst features of the Guantanamo regime. He may be
shutting down the prison on that camp, but what’s worse is he may be importing some of those legal principles into
our own legal system, where they’ll do great harm for a long time. So even if Congress had fully supported and
funded Obama’s plan to “close Guantanamo,” the core injustices that made the camp such a travesty would
remain. In fact, they’d not only remain, but would be in full force within the U.S. That’s what makes the
prime excuse offered for Obama — he tried to end all of this but couldn’t – so misleading. He only wanted to
change the locale of these injustices, but sought fully to preserve them.
Torture Advantage
Torture Low/Decreasing
Status quo solves – conditions are now humanitarian
Pearlstein, 12 (Deb, assistant professor of international and constitutional law at Cardozo Law School in New
York. She was part of the first group of human rights monitors granted access in 2004 to observe military
commission proceedings at Guantánamo Bay, “The Situation Is Better Than It Was,” JANUARY 9, 2012, 6:33 PM,
NYT Room For Debate, Online, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/09/guantanamo-10-yearslater/guantanamo-better-than-it-was, accessed 7/23/13) PE
For all that remains deplorable about the continuing operation of the Guantánamo prison, it is wrong to
suggest, as some have, that the situation now is no different than it was a decade ago. But the reasons many of
our most distinguished military leaders have called for the facility’s closure remain valid. In 2002, detention
conditions at the base were often abusive, and for some, torturous. Today, prisoners are generally housed in
conditions that meet international standards, and the prison operates under an executive order that appears to
have succeeded in prohibiting torture and cruelty. In 2002, the U.S. president asserted exclusive control over the
prison, denying the applicability of fundamental laws that would afford its residents even the most basic
humanitarian and procedural protections, and rejecting the notion that the courts had any power to constrain
executive discretion. Today, all three branches of government are engaged in applying the laws that recognize
legal rights in the detainees. Guantánamo once housed close to 800 prisoners, and most outside observers were
barred from the base. Today, it holds 171, and independent lawyers, among others, have met with most
detainees many times.
Obama’s Executive Order restricts CIA’s torture
Isikoff 9 Michael, a national investigative correspondent for NBC News. Between 1994 and 2010, he was a
correspondent in Newsweek's Washington bureau where he covered U.S. politics as well as national security and
law enforcement issues, including the Oklahoma City bombing. He is the author of Hubris: The Inside Story of Spin,
Scandal and the Selling of the Iraq War (co-written with David Corn) and Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story,
“The End of Torture”, Newsweek, The Daily Beast, 1/21/2009,
http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2009/01/21/the-end-of-torture.html
In the first sign of friction within his new administration, President Obama overruled the pleas of senior U.S.
intelligence officials and signed a new executive order that bars the CIA from using harsh interrogation
methods beyond those permitted by the U.S. military.
Harsh treatment used on approximately 30% of detainees-Torture Tactics mythical, Media
blowing things out of proportion
Rodriguez 12 (Jose A., Jose A. Rodriguez, Jr, of Puerto Rican descent, was the Director of the National
Clandestine Service (D/NCS) of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). He was the last CIA Deputy
Director for Operations (DDO) before that position was expanded to D/NCS in December 2004., “Harsh terror
interrogations were necessary, legal and effective,” Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc., May
10, 2012, http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/10/opinion/rodriguez-interrogations-legal). SS
As I detail in my new book: "Hard Measures, How Aggressive CIA Actions After 9/11 Saved American Lives,"
there are many myths surrounding the detention of a relatively small number of top terrorists at CIA-run
"black sites" from 2002 until they were sent to Guantanamo Bay in 2006. The biggest myth is that the
detainees were "tortured." Some of the stories coming out of Gitmo this past weekend simply state that as a fact.
There is no "allegedly" attached to the allegation in these stories. About 30 out of the 100 or so detainees that the
CIA held were subjected to some harsh treatment. But the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of
Justice assured us in writing that the treatment was specifically not torture. Arraignment for 9/11 suspects
chaotic Many of the techniques were essentially bluffs -- designed to get the attention of a detainee and
perhaps scare him -- but to cause no physical harm. Some of the stories this weekend talked of "years" of
abusive treatment these detainees endured. In fact, the enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) that CIA
used were applied at most for only 30 days. On average, it was much less. Abu Zubaydah, the first detainee
subjected to EITs, received them for less than three weeks. Mohammed's period of harsh -- but legal and necessary - treatment was even less. The public impression, aided and abetted by the media, is that the practice of
waterboarding was rampant. In fact, only three detainees: Mohammed, Zubaydah and one other were ever
waterboarded, the last one more than nine years ago. Many of the stories this weekend repeated the assertion that
Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times. But 183 is a count of the number of pours of water from a plastic water
bottle. Mohammed told the International Committee of the Red Cross in 2007 that he had been waterboarded five
times. If his story has now changed, it is only to match the media narrative. Some will say it doesn't matter how
many times Mohammed was waterboarded -- the practice is brutal and must never be used. What goes
unacknowledged is that in addition to the three terrorists, the United States has waterboarded tens of thousands of
U.S. military personnel. If the practice is torture for the al Qaeda operative who masterminded the killing of three
thousand Americans, why weren't there court-martials in the cases of those thousands of servicemen similarly
treated as part of their training? There is no doubt that the detainees will try to use the legal proceedings as a
soapbox to spout their contempt for America -- a contempt already indelibly displayed by such acts as ordering
passenger jets to fly into iconic buildings or, in the case of Mohammed, personally beheading Wall Street Journal
reporter Daniel Pearl. In my book, I detail the critical information we obtained from al Qaeda terrorists after they
became compliant following a short period of enhanced interrogation. I have no doubt that that interrogation was
legal, necessary and saved lives. It is good that these terrorists are now facing justice, but in the reporting of the
case, it would be helpful if the media didn't help them with their propaganda mission by unquestioningly
repeating false information about their detention.
Closing Worse
Guantanamo’s closing would lead to far worst conditions
Posner 13 (Eric, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the co-author of "Terror in the Balance:
Security, Liberty and the Courts.", The U.S needs Guantanamo, The New York Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/09/guantanamo-10-years-later/the-us-needs-guantanamo)
If Guantánamo were closed, the U.S. military would need to hold those prisoners someplace else. As long as
the U.S. uses military force in foreign countries and on the high seas, Guantánamo is necessary. To be sure,
there are other options. Detainees could be placed in prison camps on foreign territory controlled by the U.S.
military, where they lack access to U.S. courts and security is less certain. More than a thousand detainees are
currently held at Bagram, in Afghanistan. Detainees could be turned over to foreign governments, where they
are likely to be tortured. The Clinton administration took this approach. Or suspected terrorists could be
killed with drone strikes rather than captured — which seems to be the de facto tactic of the Obama
administration. For those who care about human rights, these options are hardly preferable to
Guantánamo Bay.
Can’t solve – detainees just get transferred somewhere even worse
Posner, 13 (Eric, professor at the University of Chicago Law School, is the co-author of "Terror in the Balance:
Security, Liberty and the Courts.", “The U.S. Needs Guantánamo,” JUNE 7, 2013, 12:03 PM, NYT Room For
Debate, http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/09/guantanamo-10-years-later/the-us-needs-guantanamo,
accessed 7/23/13) PE
There is nothing wrong with Guantánamo. The United States is almost continuously at war with other countries
and groups like Al Qaeda, and it needs some place to house prisoners picked up on the battlefield. If
Guantánamo were closed, the U.S. military would need to hold those prisoners someplace else. ¶ As long as the
U.S. uses military force in foreign countries and on the high seas, Guantánamo is necessary. ¶ To be sure, there are
other options. Detainees could be placed in prison camps on foreign territory controlled by the U.S. military,
where they lack access to U.S. courts and security is less certain. More than a thousand detainees are currently
held at Bagram, in Afghanistan. Detainees could be turned over to foreign governments, where they are likely
to be tortured. The Clinton administration took this approach. Or suspected terrorists could be killed with drone
strikes rather than captured — which seems to be the de facto tactic of the Obama administration. For those who
care about human rights, these options are hardly preferable to Guantánamo Bay.
Doesn’t Solve
Closing GITMO won’t solve legal status or torture – its inevitable.
Berenson 05(Bradford, lawyer who served in the White House counsel's office, “Why Guantanamo Bay
Should Stay Open”, NPR, 6/10/2005, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4697513
INSKEEP: We've heard plenty of arguments for closing the Guantanamo detention center. What is the argument for keeping it open? Mr.
BERENSON: Guantanamo has become a symbol for a set of practices in the war on terror that people object to. But it's really not Guantanamo
that people have a problem with. It's the practices involving detainees at Guantanamo that are the fodder for the critics. So closing
Guantanamo really will have only symbolic value. The things that we are doing at Guantanamo Bay will still
have to take place somewhere and Guantanamo is in many ways the ideal location to have prison camps of this kind. It is completely
secure, so there are no risks to American civilian populations, no risks of escape, yet it is close to the United States so that policy-makers,
lawyers, journalists, can have ready access, but it is not within the United States. In that sense, Guantanamo's somewhat unique. INSKEEP:
Forgive me, are you saying that the practices that have been widely criticized in the way that US has treated detainees are going to continue no
matter what? Mr. BERENSON: No, I don't mean that the abuses or the violations of US policy that have occurred from time to time are going to
take place elsewhere or anyway. But those things are not really what are stimulating the criticism. The critics of Guantanamo Bay and
the critics of the administration's detainee policy don't like the fact that we are holding people as enemy
combatants in a war on terror and that we are keeping them outside of the criminal justice system. That
won't change.
War on Terror Advantage
Can’t Solve Symbol
Guantanamo’s replacement will inevitably serve as symbolic oppression and place
Americans at risk
Gonzales 13 (United States attorney general under and counsel to President George W. Bush, QUICKTAKE:
Former Bush Official Says No Viable Alternative to Guantanamo, Middle East Voices, 05/21/2013,
http://middleeastvoices.voanews.com/2013/05/quicktake-former-bush-official-says-no-viable-alternative-toguantanamo-68085/)
Gonzales: Well, I think some people have said, ‘Gosh, what about the security of the guards, the security of the
other prisoners?’ I think that we have the capability to provide for the safety of these individuals and to provide for
the safety of the surrounding communities. But the truth of the matter is that if you move them to one facility like
supermax, the supermax will become the next symbol of American oppression. Because I think the enemy has
shown that it will use anything that we do as a recruiting tool, as a way to criticize the United States. The
other concern is of course that once you bring them into the United States, they very well may have additional
constitutional plans against this country, and I talked to you earlier about the very real possibility that these
terrorists will put the United States on trial in connection with any kind of subsequent criminal proceedings.
Their solvency is impossible – Self-reflection on base methodology is vital prerequisite to
critical analysis
Bunyavejchewin 10 (bone-yah-vetch-kah-vin)
Poowin BA (Hons) (Thammasat), MA (Hull) taught comparative and international politics in the Regional Studies
Program at Walailak University in Thailand from 2012 to 2013. He received his MA in International Politics from
the University of Hull “The Orthodox and the Critical Approach toward Terrorism: An overview” University of
Hull December 2010
In contrast to the orthodox approach, the critical approach casts doubt on the inherent ¶ trustworthiness of a statistical language since statistics can
easily be manipulated to serve a particular ¶ purpose. As a result of the epistemological positions it uses, the critical approach aims to
utilize its ¶ interdisciplinary methodologies to produce more conclusive explanations. For example, Foucauldian
genealogy has been adopted by the critical approach,22 in order to reflect an existing understanding of terrorism, since this
method ‘analyse(s) the conditions under which we might consider certain utterances ¶ or propositions to be agreed to be
true... [and] the condition under which we, as individuals, exist and ¶ what causes us to exist in the way that
we do’. From this point of view, self-reflexivity is a vital ¶ methodological notion in the methodologies of the critical
approach. Last but not least, it is not only the ¶ orthodox approach that can be revised by self-reflexive methodologies. The critical approach
can also ¶ benefit by carefully examining itself.
Discourse Not Key
Terrorist ideology is the root cause, not language—only the war on terror solves.
Epstein 05 (Alex, analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, BA in Philosophy from Duke University, “Fight the Root of
Terrorism With Bombs, Not Bread”, San Fransisco Chronicle, 8/14,
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=11243&news_iv_ctrl=1021)
In light of the recent suicide bombings in London, and the general inability of the West to prevent terrorist attacks, there is much talk
about fighting the "root cause" of terrorism. The most popular argument is that terrorism is caused by poverty. The United Nations
and our European and Arab "allies" repeatedly tell us to minimize our military operations and instead dole out more foreign aid to poor countries-to put down our guns and pick up our checkbook. Only by fighting poverty, the refrain goes, can we address the "root cause" of terrorism. The
pernicious idea that poverty causes terrorism has been a popular claim since the attacks of September 11. U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan has
repeatedly asked wealthy nations to double their foreign aid, naming as a cause of terrorism "that far too many people are condemned to lives of
extreme poverty and degradation." Former Secretary of State Colin Powell agrees: "We have to put hope back in the hearts of people. We have to
show people who might move in the direction of terrorism that there is a better way." Businessman Ted Turner also concurs: "The reason that the
World Trade Center got hit is because there are a lot of people living in abject poverty out there who don't have any hope for a better
life." Indeed, the argument that poverty causes terrorism has been central to America’s botched war in Iraq--which has focused, not on quickly
ending any threat the country posed and moving on to other crucial targets, but on bringing the good life to the Iraqi people. Eliminating
the root of terrorism is indeed a valid goal--but properly targeted military action, not welfare handouts, is the
means of doing so. Terrorism is not caused by poverty. The terrorists of September 11 did not attack America in
order to make the Middle East richer. To the contrary, their stated goal was to repel any penetration of the prosperous culture
of the industrialized "infidels" into their world. The wealthy Osama bin Laden was not using his millions to build electric power plants
or irrigation canals. If he and his terrorist minions wanted prosperity, they would seek to emulate the United States--not to destroy it. More
fundamental, poverty as such cannot determine anyone's code of morality. It is the ideas that individuals choose to adopt which
make them pursue certain goals and values. A desire to destroy wealth and to slaughter innocent, productive
human beings cannot be explained by a lack of money or a poor quality of life--only by anti-wealth, anti-life
ideas. These terrorists are motivated by the ideology of Islamic Fundamentalism. This other-worldly, authoritarian
doctrine views America's freedom, prosperity, and pursuit of worldly pleasures as the height of depravity . Its
adherents resent America's success, along with the appeal its culture has to many Middle Eastern youths. To the fundamentalists, Americans
are "infidels" who should be killed. As a former Taliban official said, "The Americans are fighting so they can live and enjoy the
material things in life. But we are fighting so we can die in the cause of God." The terrorists hate us because of their ideology--a
fact that filling up the coffers of Third World governments will do nothing to change. What then, can our
government do? It cannot directly eradicate the deepest, philosophical roots of terrorism; but by using military
force, it can eliminate the only "root cause" relevant in a political context: state sponsorship of terrorism. The
fundamentalists' hostility toward America can translate into international terrorism only via the governments
that employ, finance, train, and provide refuge to terrorist networks. Such assistance is the cause of the
terrorist threat--and America has the military might to remove that cause . It is precisely in the name of fighting
terrorism at its root that America must extend its fist, not its hand. Whatever other areas of the world may require U.S. troops to stop terrorist
operations, we must above all go after the single main source of the threat--Iran. This theocratic nation is both the birthplace of the Islamic
Fundamentalist revolution and, as a consequence, a leading sponsor of terrorism. Removing that government from power would be a potent blow
against Islamic terrorism. It would destroy the political embodiment of the terrorists' cause. It would declare America's intolerance of support for
terrorists. It would be an unequivocal lesson, showing what will happen to other countries if they fail to crack down on terrorists within their
borders. And it would acknowledge the fact that dropping bombs, not food packages, is the only way for our government
to attack terrorism at its root.
Label of Terrorist Key
Labeling terrorist as such is key to fighting the war on terror.
Ganor, 01 (Boaz, Director of the International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism “Defining Terrorism,”
http://www.ict.org.il/articles/define.htm, May 16)
We face an essential need to reach a definition of terrorism that will enjoy wide international agreement, thus
enabling international operations against terrorist organizations. A definition of this type must rely on the same principles
already agreed upon regarding conventional wars (between states), and extrapolate from them regarding non-conventional wars (betweean
organization and a state). The definition of terrorism will be the basis and the operational tool for expanding the
international community’s ability to combat terrorism. It will enable legislation and specific punishments
against those perpetrating, involved in, or supporting terrorism, and will allow the formulation of a codex of
laws and international conventions against terrorism, terrorist organizations, states sponsoring terrorism,
and economic firms trading with them. At the same time, the definition of terrorism will hamper the attempts of
terrorist organizations to obtain public legitimacy, and will erode support among those segments of the
population willing to assist them (as opposed to guerrilla activities). Finally, the operative use of the definition of
terrorism could motivate terrorist organizations, due to moral or utilitarian considerations, to shift from
terrorist activities to alternative courses (such as guerrilla warfare) in order to attain their aims, thus reducing the
scope of international terrorism. The struggle to define terrorism is sometimes as hard as the struggle against terrorism itself. The
present view, claiming it is unnecessary and well-nigh impossible to agree on an objective definition of terrorism, has long established itself as
the “politically correct” one. It is the aim of this paper, however, to demonstrate that an objective, internationally accepted definition of terrorism
is a feasible goal, and that an effective struggle against terrorism requires such a definition. The sooner the nations
of the world come to this realization, the better.
Yes War
China
War with China more likely – miscommunication and accidental launch
Fisher 11 (Max Fisher, former writer and editor at The Atlantic. “5 Most Likely Ways the U.S. and China Could Spark Accidental Nuclear
War.” The Atlantic 31 October 2011. Web.) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/10/5-most-likely-ways-the-us-and-chinacould-spark-accidental-nuclear-war/247616/ EW
After 10 years of close but unproductive talks, the U.S. and China still fail to understand one another's nuclear weapons
policies, according to a disturbing report by Global Security Newswire. In other words, neither the U.S. nor China knows when
the other will or will not use a nuclear weapon against the other . That's not due to hostility, secrecy, or deliberate foreign
policy -- it's a combination of mistrust between individual negotiators and poor communication; at times, something
as simple as a shoddy translation has prevented the two major powers from coming together. Though nuclear war between the U.S. and China is
still extremely unlikely, because the two countries do not fully understand when the other will and will not deploy nuclear weapons, the odds
of starting an accidental nuclear conflict are much higher. Neither the U.S. nor China has any interest in any kind of war with
one other, nuclear or non-nuclear. The greater risk is an accident. Here's how it would happen. First, an unforeseen event that
sparks a small conflict or threat of conflict. Second, a rapid escalation that moves too fast for either side to
defuse. And, third, a mutual misunderstanding of one another's intentions. This three-part process can move so quickly that
the best way to avert a nuclear war is for both sides to have absolute confidence that they understand when
the other will and will not use a nuclear weapon. Without this, U.S. and Chinese policy-makers would have to
guess -- perhaps with only a few minutes -- if and when the other side would go nuclear. This is especially scary because both sides have
good reason to err on the side of assuming nuclear war. If you think there's a 50-50 chance that someone is
about to lob a nuclear bomb at you, your incentive is to launch a preventative strike, just to be safe . This is
especially true because you know the other side is thinking the exact same thing . In fact, even if you think the other side
probably won't launch an ICBM your way, they actually might if they fear that you're misreading their intentions or if
they fear that you might over-react; this means they have a greater incentive to launch a preemptive strike, which means that you
have a greater incentive to launch a preemptive strike, in turn raising their incentives , and on and on until one tiny
kernel of doubt can lead to a full-fledged war that nobody wants.
Russia
War likely now – tensions over Iran and Syria
Global Research 12 (“BREAKING: Real Danger of US Military Strike on Iran and Syria: Russian Security Council.”
Global
Research 12 January 2012. Web.) http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaking-real-danger-of-us-military-strike-on-iran-and-syria-russian-securitycouncil/28624 EW
Russian Security Council secretary Nikolai Patrushev warned that military escalation is likely in Iran, with “real danger” of
a US strike, in an interview published Thursday. He added that Syria, which has refused to break its ties with Tehran,
could also be a target for Western intervention. “There is a likelihood of military escalation of the conflict, and Israel is
pushing the Americans towards it,” Patrushev said in an interview published on the website of the daily Kommersant. “There is a
real danger of a US military strike on Iran,” the senior Russian security official said. “At present, the US sees Iran as its
main problem. They are trying to turn Tehran from an enemy into a supportive partner, and to achieve this,
to change the current regime by whatever means,” he added.
MAD
MAD Fails
Jerivs 2 (Robert Jervis is the Adlai E. Stevenson professor of international politics at Columbia University. He was president of the
American Political Science Association in 2000-01. “Mutual Assured Destruction.” Foreign Policy December 2002.) EW
Critics like military strategists Herman Kahn and Colin Gray disagreed. They argued that nuclear warheads were immensely
destructive but not qualitatively different from previous weapons of warfare . Consequently, the traditional rules
of strategy applied: Security policy could only rest on credible threats (i.e., those that it made sense to carry out). The
adoption of a policy that involved throwing up your hands and destroying the world if war actually broke out was not only the height of
irresponsibility; MAD also failed to address the main strategic concern for the United States, which was to
prevent the Soviets from invading Western Europe. The stability that MAD was supposed to provide actually
would have allowed U.S. adversaries to use force below the nuclear level whenever it was to their advantage to do so. If
the United States could not have threatened to escalate a conflict by using nuclear weapons, then the Soviets would have
had free rein to fight and win a conventional war in Europe. Privately, most generals and top civilian leaders were never
convinced of the utility of MAD, and that skepticism was reflected in both Soviet and U.S. war planning. Each side strove
for advantage, sought to minimize damage to its society, deployed defenses when deemed practical , and sought limited
nuclear options that were militarily effective. Yet, for all these efforts, it is highly probable tha t a conventional war in Europe or,
even more likely, the limited use of nuclear weapons would have prompted a full-scale nuclear war that would have
resulted in mutual destruction.
MAD doesn’t protect US interests
Jerivs 2 (Robert Jervis is the Adlai E. Stevenson professor of international politics at Columbia University. He was president of the
American Political Science Association in 2000-01. “Mutual Assured Destruction.” Foreign Policy December 2002.) EW
MAD's credibility plummeted even further during the last stages of the Cold War, as the Soviet military
buildup
convinced U.S. policymakers that the U.S.S.R. did not believe in MAD and was seeking nuclear advantage. The
Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan and its African adventures revealed that MAD could not protect all U.S. interests. In
response, U.S. leaders talked about the significance of nuclear superiority and about the possibility of
surviving a nuclear war. Most dramatically, President Ronald Reagan called for missile defense, declaring in 1983 that " to look down
to an endless future with both of us sitting here with these horrible missiles aimed at each other and the only thing
preventing a holocaust is just so long as no one pulls this trigger-this is unthinkable."
Interdependence
Interdependence doesn’t prevent war
Wyne 12 (Ali Wyne, Researcher, Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs.
“Can Economic Interdependence Help to Prevent a
U.S.-China War?” Big Think 11 May 2012. Web.) http://bigthink.com/power-games/can-economic-interdependence-help-to-prevent-a-us-chinawar EW
Angell didn’t argue that “the extraordinary interdependence of the modern financial world” (p. 56) made war among
European countries—Britain and Germany, in particular—impossible, but rather, futile—a crucial distinction. Indeed, it was because he
believed that growing tensions between them were likely to culminate in war that he appealed so forcefully to
statesmen in each country to reverse course: [S]o long as the production of war material and the training for
war are our only preparation for peace, we shall almost certainly prepare not for peace but for war , and every
ship that we [the British] add…by increasing the suspicion and distrust that go with the ever-increasing weight of material, does
but render a solution of the matter more difficult….At present there is only one policy that holds the field—to go on building
ships (p. 334).
Interdependece and MAD fail – nanotechnology
Treder 5 (Mike Treder is the executive director of the Center for Responsible Nanotechnology.
“War, Interdependence, and
Nanotechnology.” FutureBrief 2005. Web.) http://www.futurebrief.com/miketrederwar002.asp EW
Today, more people live in freedom than at any time in history . Although poverty is still a serious worldwide problem, more
people are healthier and better fed than ever before. And despite regional wars and terrorist attacks (which have beset civilization for centuries),
we have managed to avoid destroying ourselves with full-scale thermonuclear war. But looming just over the
horizon is a grave threat. It is nanotechnology . From the dawn of the nuclear age until the present day, we have relied on
two mechanisms to protect us from World War III : the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), and the
growing interdependence of nations. However, in the very near future we may not be able to count on these
controls. The tenuous balance of MAD and the worldwide network of commercial trade are both threatened
by the rise of advanced nanotechnology.
Fettweis indict
Fettweis’ analysis is flawed – doesn’t assume key factors
Hanley 11 (Lieutenant Colonel Hanley works as a supervisory intelligence analyst in the Washington, D.C. area. He is a former member of
the Naval Institute’s editorial board and a regular contributor to Proceedings. Bluetoad.com January 2011.)
http://www.bluetoad.com/print.php?pages=72&issue_id=57476&ref=1 EW
Fettweis says nothing about the reckless proliferation of dual-use technologies— especially biotechnologies and nuclear
fuel-cycle technology. The past masters of proliferation include the very powers— China and Russia—whom
Fettweis claims have no desire to fight a major war . It’s been a mere 20 years since the end of the Iran–Iraq war—a territorial
dispute between states aspiring to regional dominance—which resembled World War I a lot more closely than it did anything surmised in
Fettweis’s worldview. What are we to make of China’s recent claim to indisputable sovereignty over 1.3 million
square miles of the South China Sea, substantial portions of which are considered international waters? What
happens if a dispute over navigation can’t be resolved through diplomacy? What of the territorial disputes
between India and Pakistan? War may not be likely under such circumstances, as it has throughout human history, but it is certainly
possible
Escalation—China
War with China will escalate – Chinese preemption
Wroe 13 (David Wroe is the defence correspondent for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald in Canberra.
“US strategy could result in
nuclear war.” Sydney Morning Herald 15 April 13. Web.) http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-strategy-could-result-innuclear-war-20130414-2htn8.html EW
The paper, written by the institute's senior analyst for defence strategy, Benjamin Schreer, urges the Australian government to
keep a cautious distance from the plan for now. Australia would likely play a role in the strategy, particularly
with US Marines stationed in Darwin. The plan assumes any conflict between the US and China - most likely over
Taiwan or Chinese skirmishing with Japan - would remain below the level of nuclear strikes. But Dr Schreer writes that "such
an outcome is far from certain". Part of any US plan to strike at China would involve "blinding" the People's
Liberation Army by hitting its surveillance, intelligence and command systems. This could provoke panic on the Chinese side and
"consequently increase the chances of Chinese nuclear pre-emption", he writes.
War escalates – miscalc and drawing in other powers
Wroe 13 (David Wroe is the defence correspondent for The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald in Canberra.
“US strategy could result in
nuclear war.” Sydney Morning Herald 15 April 13. Web.) http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/us-strategy-could-result-innuclear-war-20130414-2htn8.html EW
"AirSea Battle thus raises the spectre of a series of miscalculations on both sides if Beijing perceives
conventional attacks on its homeland as an attempt to disarm its nuclear strike capability .'' The paper coincides
with rising tensions between China and Japan over territorial disputes in the East China Sea , and between China
and Vietnam in the South China Sea. US military planners are developing the AirSea Battle plan in response to the shift in the strategic balance as
China's growing military might threatens to end more than half a century of US dominance on the western
Pacific rim.