1ac guantanamo bay (1)

7/27/2019 1ac Guantanamo Bay (1)

1/21

Lexington High School 2005-2006 Guantanamo Bay Affirmativ

Pre-camp Wor

1AC

Contention One: Inherency

The perpetual War on Terror has created an ever-lasting state of emergency, to fight the others. This is the

ultimate deployment of biopolitical control that acts through such concentration camps as Guantanamo bayThese camps stripe the occupants of their rights and dehumanize them.

Jess, White, 7/04 Project Officer of World Refugee Day (The Human is a Battleground) http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html

What is the human today? And what is life? While once the answers perhaps seemed self - evident, today this is far from the case. Emerging biotechnologies have

moved both life and death from the natural realm into the realm of decisionism and hence the realm of sovereign power. Schools of bioethicare devoted to such questions as, when is an embryo life? When is a foetus too old too abort? What counts as death - the end of the heartbeat? Brain-death? Yet while

technologies have forced debate on such matters, another more sinister redefinition of the border between the human and the animal is taking place in the sphere of a politi

that is rapidly being subsumed into biopolitics.

Life, politics, and the politicisation of life:

From Aristotle to Arendt, classical political thinkers have sought to delimit politics, setting it apart from mere life, which, they argued, was an essentially private affair. InAncient Greece, this distinction is evident in the lack of a single word for human life, signified by the split between zoe: natural life, and bios: the politically qualified life.

The purpose of politics was therefore not simply life but the good life, a life that is not naturally given but is an achievement. Hence only through political action could on

create a good and truly human life.

Yet while these thinkers conceived of natural life as that which must be excluded from the polis, the realm of politics, zoe is nonetheless presupposed as that which mustsimultaneously be excluded and politicised through its transformation into bios. For Agamben, the relationship between what he terms bare life and the polis is one of

inclusive exclusion: bare life is immediately included as that which is held in a ban, or maintained in a relation of abandonment, in order to enable the existence of politics

Agamben gives the name bare life to that threshold between bios andzoe which separates the political sphere from the sphere of natural life, and the polis from the priva

realm. And yet today this threshold has succumbed to instability. As the management of biological life becomes the supreme political task, the border between bios andzo

crumbles, and Arendts assertion that life and death are non-worldly and anti-political can no longer be sustained. As life and death are politicised, we see, in

concerns with racial purity and biological heredity -which became the fundamental tasks of the Nazistate - and in the movement

of death from a zone of purebiological fact into one of politics by virtue of new medical technologies,the necessity for biopolitics to

pass over into thanatopolitics (a politics of death).Death is always lurking behind the states care for life, a realisation that has existed sinSocrates described an art of medicine in which the doctor would let die the ones whose bodies are [corrupt] and the ones whose souls have bad natures and are incurabl

they themselves will kill.2

BiopoliticsIn his 1976 lecture series at the College de France, Society Must be Defended, Foucault pointed to racism as that which reinscribes the right to kill in the sphere of a state

supposedly committed to the fostering of, and care for, life. Foucault argues that in the biopower system

killing or the imperative to kill is acceptable only if it results not in a victory over political adversaries but in the elimination ofthe biological threat to and the improvement of the species or race.3As Foucault points out, war today has two functions: it exists not only to destroy a political adversary but also to destroy thebiological

threat, to destroy the sort of threat that those people over there represent to our race. It is in this context that we should view the recent warnings by a seni

British military officer that the US occupying forces in Iraq view the Iraqi population asuntermenschen(subhuman). In the context of Iraq, we see how this mobilisation of a biologica

discourse, which as Foucault points out is simply reinscribed onto the notion of the political enemy, is utilised to deadly effect, justifying

the indiscrimate targeting of a civilian population conceived as both enemy and subhuman threat, and undoubtedly contributing to the

torture, degradation and humiliation of Iraqi prisoners.Human Rights?

How then do we respond to this new biopolitical control? The primary response to the inscription of biological life into the realm of state power and of politics, has been th

assertion that inalienable rights are attached to the human in and of itself. Yet to invoke human rights is not only to legitimise the power of the state that must enforce thembut to be implicated in the very development of a biopolitics that has turned human life into a site for political control. Far from being neutral in relation to this power,

human rights declarations are mechanisms by which sovereignty, which was previously legitimated through recourse to the divine, now finds its basis in a national or

sovereign people. To locate rights in the biological life of the human, is to bring this life further into the realm of sovereign power. As Agamben puts it:

It is almost as if starting from a certain point, every decisive political event were double sided: the spaces, the liberties and the rights won by individuals in their conflicts

with certain powers always simultaneously prepared a tacit but increasing inscription of individuals lives within the state order, thus offering a new and more dreadfulfoundation for the very sovereign power from which they wanted to liberate themselves.4

The truth of this is perhaps best revealed in the 1679 writ ofhabeas corpus show us the body. Habeas corpus was a writ aimed at the undermining of arbitrary

imprisonment, and provided that an individual who was detained must, if a writ was lodged, be brought before a magistrate within a certain period of time. Interestingly

however, the writ operated without reference to the standard mechanisms of political legitimation: it referred not to the subject of feudal relations, or the citizen imbued wi

political rights, but simply to the body, the human in and of itself. While, as Hansen and Stepputat argue, habeas corpus curtailed the exercise of arbitrary state violence bdefining the body of the citizen as an integral part of the sovereign body of the people and thus entitled to due process, it did so only at the cost of entangling the body, or

something akin to Agambens bare life, in the sphere of sovereign power.

This analysis of Agambens goes beyond the more familiar critique of human rights, which suggests that in their application, human rights are in fact the rights of citizens

Certainly this recognition provides an initial insight into the mobilisation of the category of the human, and the concomitant dehumanisation that has always accompanied Yet to point to the nationally demarcated sphere of application of human rights is not enough to explain the changing nature of the human that has accompanied the

progression from a sovereignty legitimated through the life of a people, to a biopolitics of national populations, to the emerging biopolitics of humanity. While today the

possession of citizenship is an essential precondition for access to human rights, it is by no means enough to guarantee such access.

If today biopolitics increasingly operates on a global scale, taking all the people of the globe as a population to be monitored, ordered, hierarchized and intervened into wit
http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1http://stateofemergency.nomasters.org/reader/human.html#1


2/21


3/21


Pre-camp Worfiled in U.S. District Court in Washington, where detainees have filed lawsuits challenging their detentions. Court documents publicised last week are giving dozens

of Guantanamo


4/21


Pre-camp Wor

1ACdetainees what the Bush administration had sought to keep from public view: identities and voices. The government is holding about 550 terrorist suspects a

its naval base in Cuba. An additional 214 have been released since the facility opened in January 2002 -- some into the custody of their native governments, others

freed outright. The detainees appeared last year before the three-officer military tribunals which, after quick reviews, confirmed their statusas "enemy combatants" who could be held indefinitely. In the transcripts, one terror suspect asked his U.S. militaryjudge: "Is it

possible to see the evidence in order to refute it?" In another case, Guantanamo prisoner Feroz Ali Abbasi was ejected from his hearinfor repeatedly challenging the legality of his detention. "I have the right to speak," Abbasi insisted in transcripts reviewed by the

Associated Press. "No, you don't," the tribunal president replied. "I don't care about international law," the tribunal president told Abbas

just before he was taken from the room. "I don't want to hear the words 'international law' again. We are not concerned with international

law."

finally, The process of detainment will spread, destroying multilateralism and soft power

Judith, Butler, 04, Professor of Rhetoric at Berkeley (Precarious Life: The Powers of Mourning and Violence)

My fear is that the indefinite detainment of prisonersonGuantanamowill become a modelfor the branding and managementofso-called terrorist

in various global sites where no rights of appeal to international rights and to international courts will be presumed. If this extension of

lawless and illegitimate powertakes place, we will see the resurgence of a violent and self aggrandizing state sovereignty at the expense of any

commitment to global cooperation that might support and redistribute rights of recognition governing who may be treated according to standards that ought to

govern the treatment of humans. This is a formof sovereignty that seeksto absorb an international coalition, rather than submit to a self limiting practice bvirtue of its international obligations


5/21


Pre-camp Wor

1ACContention Two:Advantages

Sub point A Bio power

This bio political control over the other justifies wholesale slaughter of entire populations and nuclear

annihilation.

Foucault in 78 (Michel Foucault, philosopher, former director at the Francais Institute at Hamberg, The History of Sexuality, Volume 1, pg 136-137, Nov. 1978)

Since the classical age, the West has undergone a very profound transformation of these mechanisms of power. Deduction has tended to be no longe

the major form of power but merely one element among others, working to incite, reinforce, control, monitor, optimize, and organize the forces under it: a

power bent on generating forces making them grow, and ordering them, rather than one dedicated to impeding them, making them submit, or

destroying them. There has been a parallel shift in the right of death, or at least a tendency to align itself with the exigencies of a life-administeringpower and to define itself accordingly. This death that was based on the right of the social body to ensure, maintain or develop its life. Ye

wars were never as bloody as the have been since the nineteenth century, and all things being equal, never before did regimes visit suchholocausts on their own populations. But this formidable power of death-and this is perhaps what accounts for part of its force and the cynicism with which ishas so greatly expanded its limits-now presents itself as the counterpart of a power that exerts a positive influence on life, that endeavors to administer, optimize, and

multiply it, subjecting it to precise controls and comprehensive regulations. Wars are no longer waged in the name of a sovereign who must be defendedthey are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone; entire populations are mobilized for the purpose of wholesale slaughter in the

name of life necessity: massacres have become vital.It is as mangers of life and survival-of bodies and the race, that so many regime

have been able to wage so many wars, causing so many men to be killed. And through a turn that closes the circle, as the technology of wars ha

caused them to tend increasingly toward all-out destruction, the decision that initiates them and the one that terminates them are in

fact increasingly informed by the naked question of survival. The atomic situation is now at the end point of this process:the power to

expose a whole population to deathis the underside of the power to guarantee an individuals continued existence. The principleunderlying the tactics of battle-that one has to be capable of killing in order to go on living-has become the principle that defines the

strategy of states. But the existence in question is no longer the juridical existence of sovereignty; at stake is the biological existence of a population. If genocide is

indeed the dream of modern powers, this is not because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill;it is because power is situated and

exercised at the level of life,the species, the race, ad the large -scale phenomena of population.

also, It is a moral obligation to protect humyn rights

San 93(Secretary General of Amnesty International)

The issue is not an argument between human rights organizations and governments; it is a struggle between the people and their governments. What is at

stake today is a vision of the world in which all human beings can live in the knowledge that certain basic rights are inviable. It is the

duty of each of us individuals and collectively to see that these rights are always protected.

finally, The people must rise up to defend against all breaches of freedom or be thrown into a world of

tyranny.

Petro, 74 (Law Professor at Wake Forest, Wake Forest Law Review.)

However, one may still insist, echoing Ernest Hemingway - "I believe in only one thing: liberty." And it is always well to bear in mind David Hume's observation

"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." Thusit is unacceptable to say that the invasion of one aspect of freedom is

no import because there have been of so many other aspects. The road leads to chaos, tyranny, despotism, and the end of all human

aspiration." Ask Solzhenisyn. Ask Milovan Djilas. In sum, if one believes in freedom as a supreme value and the proper ordering principle for any society aiming to

maximize spiritual and material welfare, thenevery invasion of freedom must be emphatically identified and resisted with undying spirit .


6/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

Sub point B Soft Power

Lack of soft power creates a perception of hostile hegemony thereby stroking an isolationist public

legitimacy is the only way to sustain unipolarityKori Schake, Director for Defense Strategy, National Security Council, and KlausBecher, Senior Fellow for European Security, International Institute for

Strategic Studies, August02 (How America Should Lead Policy Review) lexisIF THE AMERICAN-LED Century is to become the American-led Centuries, the U.S. needs to foster and promote the sources of

American power: the legitimacy and quality of leadership ensured by America's democratic institutions and rule of law, the dynamism of the global economthe innovative juggernaut of the American military, international respect for U.S. analysis and diplomacy, the sparkling generosity of individual Americans and theircharities, the magnetic attraction for immigration that enriches diversity and expands the talent pool, the good sense of the American people, the belief in progress and

harnessing technology, the prospect of more capable webbing together of the instruments of power. All the things that have made the U.S. strong show every likelihood of

making it stronger -- and while America certainly doesn't have all the answers, as a society it is open to finding right answers and correcting its course. The U.S. could

very likely sustain the current American-dominated international order unilaterally, shedding the constraining and frequently aggravatin

alliances and institutions. However,that would be a costly way to dominate, and one with which the American public is likely to beuncomfortable. An international order in which other states did not want U.S. dominion and regulation would be a much more

burdensome and hostile international order -- one much more likely to make American taxpayers feel isolationist, with all the damagin

consequences for American well-being.

and, The end of unipolarity results in multiple nuclear wars, systemic global conflict, and magnification of

all impacts

NiallFerguson, Professor, History,School of Business, New York University and Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, October04[A worldWithout Power - Foreign Policy] infotrac.

Sowhat is left? Waning empires. Religious revivals. Incipient anarchy. A coming retreat into fortified cities. These are the Dark Ageexperiences that a world without a hyperpower might quickly find itself reliving. The trouble is, of course, that this Dark Age would be analtogether more dangerous one than the Dark Age of the ninth century. For the world is much more populousroughly 20 times moreso friction between the world's

disparate tribes is bound to be more frequent. Technology has transformed production; now human societies depend not merely on freshwater and the harvest but also on

supplies of fossil fuels that are known to be finite. Technology has upgraded destruction, too, so it is now possible not just to sack a city but to obliterate it.

For more than two decades, globalizationthe integration of world markets for commodities, labor, and capitalhas raised living standards throughout the world, except

where countries have shut themselves off from the process through tyranny or civil war. The reversal of globalizationwhich a new Dark Age would produce

would certainly lead to economic stagnation and even depression. As the United States sought to protect itselfafter a second September 11devastates, say, Houston or Chicago, it would inevitably become a less open society, less hospitable for foreigners seeking to work, visit, or do business.Meanwhile, as Europe's Muslim enclaves grew, Islamist extremists' infiltration of the EU would become irreversible, increasing trans-

Atlantic tensions over the Middle East to the breaking point. An economic meltdown in China would plunge the Communist system into crisis,unleashing the centrifugal forces that undermined previous Chinese empires. Westerninvestors would lose out and conclude that lower returns at home are preferable to the risks of default abroad. The worsteffects of the new Dark Age would be felt on the

edges of the waning great powers.The wealthiest ports of the global economyfrom New York to Rotterdam to Shanghaiwould become the targets

of plunderers and pirates. With ease, terrorists could disrupt the freedom of the seas, targeting oiltankers, aircraft carriers, and cruise liners, while

Western nations frantically concentrated on making their airports secure. Meanwhile,limited nuclear wars could devastate numerous regions,

beginning in the Korean peninsula and Kashmir,perhapsending catastrophically in the Middle East. In Latin America, wretchedly poor citizens

would seek solace in Evangelical Christianity imported by U.S. religious orders. In Africa, the great plagues of AIDS and malaria would continue their

deadly work. The few remaining solvent airlines would simply suspend services to many cities in these continents; who would wish to leave their privately guarded sa

havens to go there? For all these reasons, the prospect of an apolar world should frighten us today a great deal more than it frightened the heirs of Charlemagne. If the

UnitedStatesretreats from global hegemonyits fragile self-image dented by minor setbacks on the imperial frontierits criticsat home and abroadmus

not pretend that they are usheringin a new era ofmultipolar harmony, or even a return to the good old balance of power. Be careful whyou wish for.The alternative to unipolaritywould not be multipolarity at all. Itwould be apolaritya global vacuum of power.


7/21


8/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

and, The acceleration of WMD proliferation causes nuclear wars and global escalation

VictorUtgoff, Deputy fo Strategy, Forces, and Resources Division, Institute for Defense Analysis, 02(Survival)http://survival.oupjournals.org

Widespread proliferation is likely to lead to an occasional shoot-out with nuclear weapons and that such shoot-outs will have a

substantial probability of escalating to the maximum destruction possible with the weapons at hand. Unless nuclear proliferation is stopped we

are headed toward a world that will mirror the American Wild West of the late 1800s. With most, if not all, nations wearing nuclear six-shooters ontheir hips, the world may even be a more polite place than it is today, but every once in a while we will all gather on a hill to bury the bodies ofdead cities or even

whole nations.

moreover, the legitimatization of torture destroys our European relations as well as our soft power

James Kitfield, 1/15/05, Staff Writer for the The National Journal, (Give 'Em Hell, George?) lexis

"But in an extraordinary series of decisions in 1949,Truman put forward ideas and molded a successful strategy that was neither American nor European i

nature,but ratherWestern.' That solidarity between America and Europe remains the best recipe for global security today," said Serfaty. "My concernnow is that the United States is no longer in control of events, but rather, events are controlling us. And if the present outreach by the Bush administration to allies in Euro

is spurned, or is unsuccessful, then the issues we face together will worsen, the bad feelings across the Atlantic will grow, and the Western alliance that is already splinteri

may never recover."

The question now is whetherthose movesare mostly stylistic flourishes designed to temporarily mask the hard edges of U.S. foreign policy -- or whether

they are signs ofa substantive effort toadjust the Bush Doctrine in the face of demands by allies for more consultations and consensus-building. The answer

could well shape the history of the early 21st century and determine whether the United States reclaims leadership of the industrialized democracies. Either

America will lead the West in a collective effort to confront crisesin Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere in the Middle East, and inNorth Korea -- not to mention

the long-term challenges of terrorism and the proliferation of doomsday weapons; or, a United States determined to address disparate crises with ad hoc

coalitions of the moment will continue to go its own way, unfetteredby traditional alliances and suspicious of international legal structures. "If you look at the Bus

administration's actions after the election, I think they've clearly realized that their often- brusquestyle has been counterproductive, and that by reducing our

attractiveness overseas, it has diminished American soft power," said Joseph Nye, a former dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School ofGovernment and the author of Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. "Given that President Bush has declined invitations to admit any mistakes, however, i

difficult to know whether his administration is pursuing a more multilateral course at the moment simply because the U.S. military is overextended

Iraq and they have run out of good options, or whether they are aware of the damage done to America's image and are quietly trying to change course.That's the million-dollar question." Danielle Pletka is vice president of foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, the intellectual home ofinfluential neoconservatives in the Bush administration, most of whom will remain in the second term. Speculation that Bush's outreach campaign amounts to a substantiv

change in foreign-policy direction, she says, is a gross miscalculation of the nature and core beliefs of Bush and his senior advisers. "There has been a change in

atmospherics: The substance of Bush's foreign policy has been expressed more politely, the outreach to other leaders has been enthusiastic, and that's all to the good,"

Pletka said in an interview. "But I have seen zero evidence of a change in the underlying policy. The basic idea that the United States is goingto use its muscle to promote democracy as a long-term solution to Islamic extremism in the Middle East has become so mainstream as to be conventional wisdo

today, and I would call that a resounding victory for neoconservatives." A Controversial Doctrine Certainly, the Bush administration has failed to

win wide acceptance, even among its traditional allies, for the Bush Doctrine. From the very beginning, the post-9/11 Bush Doctrine for fighting the global war

on terror and countering the spread of weapons ofmass destruction was based on a bold premise: that American power, unconstrained by traditiona

bonds and honed to a domineering edge by a transformed high-tech military, could not merely check or contain, but decisively defeat those threats. In announcing th

doctrine, Bush took aim not just at Al Qaeda, but also at any terrorist organization with global reach. His doctrine also included those nations that sponsored terrorism,exhibited "rogue" behavior, and pursued weapons of mass destruction. In his 2002 State of the Union address, Bush named three of the worst offenders as part of an "axis

evil" -- Iraq, Iran, and North Korea -- and then in his 2002 National Security Strategy document, he implied that the United States would be prepared to attack them pre-

emptively, if need be. The Pentagon, meanwhile, continually insisted that any such campaigns would result not from close consultations with traditional alliances such as

NATO, but rather with an ad hoc" coalition of the willing." When all of those controversialpremises seemed to coalesce around the Iraq war, the Westeralliance essentially split. In a second term, the Bush administration confrontsa choice between trying to recast the doctrine in a way that mends the rift and

wins widerinternational support, or continuing to fashion a more "go-it-alone" approach that emphasizes American "exceptionalism." Ironically, the Iraq

difficulties may provide Washington and its allies with the chanceto undertake a sobering period of reflection, and the opportunity to seek a

middle ground where their interests still intersect. "Despite a lot of happy talk from the Bush administration, I'm pessimistic that they are willing to take concrete stepto improve our alliances. But even if their mind-set has not changed at all, it's difficult to imagine the next international crisis they would be willing to provoke," said PhiliGordon, director of the Center on the United States and Europe at the Brookings Institution. "The reality of the situation is that the United States military is badly

overstretched, we're facing huge deficits and running out of money, and we have few allies in Iraq," Gordon said. Those difficulties have provided a certain breathing spac

he said, for all sides to contemplate where the Western alliance goes from here. "At some point, our allies are likely to stop fearing our power, and start worrying more abo

the weakness of a United States that remains bogged down in Iraq. That would be a sea change in international affairs." To reclaim a middle ground on which a
http://survival.oupjournals.org/http://survival.oupjournals.org/http://survival.oupjournals.org/


9/21


Pre-camp Wor

1ACunited Western alliance can once again stand firmly, some analysts say, the Bush administration needs to consult more closely with traditional allies, and

show greaterdeference to international law. That seemed to be the message behind the Bush administration's planned trip to the European Union and

NATO in February, as well as behind recent declarations in support of the Geneva Conventions against torture. Follow-on initiatives designeto win international support might include greater U.S. participation in efforts to reform the United Nations, and a long-promised Bush plan for reducing emissions

that contribute to global warming. Re-engagement in the Middle East peace process, meanwhile, could once again cast the United States in the role of"peacemaker," a position from which it derived significant global legitimacy in the past. "I think the Bush administration underestimated the degree to which thelegitimacy of American power is linked to a fundamental respect for international law," said David Hendrickson, a professor at Colorado College and the co-author of "Ira

and U.S. Legitimacy" in the November/December 2004 edition of Foreign Affairs magazine. "There were times in the past when we departed from

international law, but they were generally viewed as the exception and not the rule. For the Bush administration to treat international law disdainfully with doctrines li

'pre-emption' and memos seeming to authorize torture not only alarmed our traditional allies, but it diminished us in world opinion." Fotheir part, allies will need to meet the Bush administration halfway, at least in part by taking seriously U.S. concerns about the volatile mix of rogue states, terrorists, and

weapons of mass destruction. Already, Britain, France, and Germany have taken the lead in negotiations designed to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons programwhile Japan and South Korea are closely involved in similar negotiations with North Korea. The next step is for the United States and its allies to fashion coherent

approaches, and agreed-upon packages of carrots and sticks, that can lead to successful conclusions to those negotiations.

and finally, Transatlantic cooperation is essential to prevent bioterrorism attack that are highly probable,

quick timeframe, and as dangerous as nuclear war.

Daniel Hamilton, 6/11/03, Director of the Center for Transatlantic Relations @ Johns Hopkins University, (FDCH Congressional Testimony) lexis

Third Priority: Transatlantic Homeland Security Third, we must develop "transatlantic" approaches to homeland security and societal protection. When the United States

was attacked, our allies immediately invoked the North Atlantic Treaty's mutual defense clause, in essence stating that the September 11 attack was an attack on a common

security space - a common "homeland." It is unlikely that a successful effort to strengthen homeland security can be conducted in isolation from

one's allies. The U.S. may be a primary target forAl-Qaeda, but we know it has alsoplanned major operations in Europe.

A terrorist WMD attack on Europe would immediately affect American civilians, American forces, and American interests. If such an attack

involved contagious disease, it could threaten the American homeland itselfin a matter of hours. The SARS epidemic, while deadly, is simply a

"mild" portent of what may be to come. Bioterrorism in particularis a first-order strategic threat to the Euro-Atlantic community. A bioterrorist

attackin Europe or North America is more likely and could be as consequential as a nuclear attack, but requires a different set of national andinternational responses. Europeans and Americans alike are woefully ill-prepared for such challenges.

In the aftermath of the September 11 attacks, it has become very clear that controlling borders, operating ports, or managing airports and train stations in the age of

globalization involves a delicate balance of identifying and intercepting weapons and terrorists without excessively hindering trade, legal migration, travel and tourism upowhich European and American prosperity increasingly depends. Efforts to protect the U.S. homeland against cyberattack, for example, can hardly be

conducted in isolation from key allies whose economies and information networks are so intertwined with ours.

Unless there is systematic trans-European and trans-Atlantic coordination in the area of preparedness, each side of the Atlantic is at greater

risk of attack. Uneven "homeland security" coordination and preparedness within Europe renders North America more vulnerable, particularly since North America'ssecurity is organically linked to Europe's vulnerability to terrorist infiltration. Similarly, if U.S. and Canadian efforts render the North American homeland less vulnerableterrorist attack, terrorists may target Europe. Just because the Cold War has faded does not mean that Europeans and North Americans are less dependent on one another.

Sub point C Hard Power

Allied support is critical to global power projection Unilateralism guts the ability of countries to provide

base and overflight rights

Joseph S. Nye Jr, 7/27/04, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government (Soft Power; The Means to Success in WorldPolitics) p. 26

Soft balancing was not limited to the UN arena. Outside the UN, diplomacy and peace movements helped transform the global debate from the

sins of Saddam to the threat of American Empire. That made it difficult for allied countries to provide bases and support and thus cut into America

hard power. As noted earlier, the Turkish parliaments refusal to allow transport of ground troops and Saudi Arabias reluctance to allow American use

of air bases that had been available in 1991are cases in point. Since the global projection ofAmerican military force in the future will require

access and overflightrights from other countries, such soft balancing can have real effects on hard power.


10/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

moreover, Base and overflight rights are a critical foundation of US hard power preponderance cannot be

leveraged without it

Barry RPosen, Professor of Political Science @ MIT, 03 (Command of the Commons: The Military Foundation of U.S. Hegemony International Security) Lexis

Command of the commons is the military foundation of U.S. political preeminence. It is the key enabler of the hegemonic foreign

policy that the United States has pursued since the end of the Cold War. The military capabilities required to secure command of the commons are the

U.S. suit. They leverage science technology, and economic resources. They rely on highly trained, highly skilled, and increasingly highly paid militarypersonnel. On the whole, the U.S. military advantage at sea, in the air, and in space will be very difficult to challenge let alone overcome. Command is further

secured by the worldwide U.S. base structure and the ability of U.S. diplomacy to leverage other sources of U.S. power to secure additional

bases and overflight rights as needed.

finally, Loss of hard power leads to nuclear war and global conflict

Zalmay Khalizad, Research Analyst at the RAND Institute, Spring 95 [Losing the Moment? The United States and the World After the Cold War Washington

Quartely) lexisUnder the third option, the U nited States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to

multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not a

an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the globa

environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such aworld would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of

regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of another hostile

global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid anotherglobal cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a

global nuclear exchange. U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance o

power system.


11/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

Thus the plan: We demand that the United States federal government substantially reduce its authority to

detain without charge by placing charges against the detainees of Guantanamo Bay. The detainees will

receive full due processes. Well clarify.

(Might need to change)


12/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

Contention Three: Solvency

We solve for our advantages in three separate ways

Productive and disruptive resistance can come from anywhere because we are all object of biopolitical

control


13/21


Pre-camp WorSlavoj Zizek, 02, Senior Researcher @ Institute for Social Studies @ Ljubljana (Welcome to the Desert of theReal!) p 91-96


14/21


Pre-camp Wor


15/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC


16/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

moreover, By restoring humynity back to Guantanamo, we use democracy against the state, and give

infinite justice back to the other. We preclude political change

Simon, Critchley, 99, Philosophy @ Essex, (Ethics, Politics, Subjectivity) 281-283


17/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC


18/21


Pre-camp Wor

1AC

and, By sticking to its core beliefs, and protesting these atrocities, the U.S. can overcome the mistakes of

Guantanamo Bay and regain its soft power.

Joseph S. Nye Jr, 7/27/04, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government (U.S. democratic alliances key to restoration of lo

'soft' power - Reprinted from The Jakarta Post) http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/news/opeds/2004/Nye_allies_key_to_soft_power_jakarta_post_082704.htm

Admiration for American values does not mean, of course, that others want to imitate all the ways Americans implement them. While many Europeans admire

America's devotion to freedom, they prefer policies at home that temper the liberal economic principles of individualism with a robust

welfare state. Despite all the rhetoric about "old" and "new" Europe, at the end of the Cold War opinion surveys showed that two-thirds of Czechs, Poles, Hungarians,and Bulgarians perceived the U.S. as a good influence on their respective countries, but fewer than a quarter wanted to import American economic models.

Popular culture can often be an important source of "soft" power. Simple items like blue jeans, cola, or Hollywood movies helped produ

favorable outcomes in at least two ofthe most important American objectives after 1945. One was the democratic reconstruction of

Europe after World War II, and the other was victory in the Cold War. The Marshall Plan and NATO were crucial instruments of economic and military powe

but popular culture reinforced their effect. The dollars invested by the Marshall Plan helped achieve U.S. objectives in reconstructing Europe, but so did theideas transmitted by American popular culture.

Today, about two-thirds of the people polled in ten European countries say they admire America for its popular culture and progress in science and technology, but on

a third think the spread of American customs in their country is a good idea. The U.S. doesn't have to make others look like little

Americans, but it does have to live up to its core values in order to use its soft power effectively.

This is why the examples of theprisons at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay have been so costly. It is also why a free press that reports these problems,congressional hearings that investigate them, and a recent set of Supreme Court decisions that give detainees legal recourse are also so important. America is not

perfect, but as long as it abides by its core values, it can overcome its mistakes and regain its soft power in democratic countries.

For example, America was extraordinarily unpopular at the time ofthe Vietnam War, yetit recovered its soft powerwithin a decade, and it isinteresting to consider why. Part of the answer may be that when students were marching in the streets protesting, they did not sing the

"Internationale"; they sang "We Shall Overcome." America's democratic values will be the key to success in restoring its soft power.

finally, Now is a key time for the US to regain its soft power by picking up on its moral and judicial duties

through our prevalent democratic system

Joseph S. Nye Jr, Sultan of Oman Professor of International Relations at the Kennedy School of Government, 7/29/04, (Can America Regain Its Soft Power After AbuGhraib?)

Even before the Abu Ghraib photos were published, anti-Americanism had been rising around the world. Polls showed that the United States lost some thirty points of

attraction in Europe in 2003, and Americas standing had plummeted in the Islamic world from Morocco to Indonesia. In 2000, nearly three quarters of Indonesians had afavorable view of the US. By May 2003, that had plummeted to 15 percent. In Jordan and Pakistan, a 2004 poll shows that more people are attracted to Osama bin Laden

than to George Bush. Yet both these countries are on the front line of the battle against Al Qaeda. Clearly, the Bush Administration has squandered Americas soft power.

Skeptics about soft power argue that anti-Americanism is inevitable because of our role as the worlds only military superpower. They regard popularity as ephemeral and

advise us to simply ignore the polls. We are the worlds leader and should do what we determine to be in our national interest. As the big kid on the block, we are bound to

engender envy and resentment as well as admiration. But the ratio of hate to love depends on whether we are seen as a bully or a friend . We were

even more preponderant in the 1940s, but the Marshall Plan helped our soft power. Similarly , the United States was the worlds only superpowerin the

1990s, but anti-Americanism never reached the levels that it did after the new unilateralism of the second Bush administration.

Can the United States regain its soft power? We have done it before. Anti-Americanism soared during the Vietnam War in the early 1970s, but we

recovered within a decade. Not only did we change our policy in Vietnam, but the emphasis on human rights and freedom in Eastern Europ

by Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan helped to emphasize attractive American values.

More specifically, we will have to deal with the abuses that were exposed at Abu Ghraib. Fortunately, we have begun to do that. Whatever our flaws as a

occupying power, the symbolism of Abu Ghraib did not reduce the United States to the moral equivalent of the tyrant it replaced. Democracy matters. Americanabuses were widely published and criticized in our free press for all to see. Congressional hearings have made officials testify in public. And the

American Supreme Court has asserted its independence from the executive branch by recently ruling that detainees at

Guantanamo Bay and in military brigs in the United States must have access to legal representation.

One ofthe greatest sources of American soft power is the openness of our democratic processes. Even when mistaken policies reduce our

attractiveness, our ability to openly criticize and correct our mistakes makes us attractive to others at a deeper level. Vietnam is a goodexample. When protesters overseas were marching in the streets against the Vietnam War, they did not sing The Internationale, but rather Martin Luther

Kings We Shall Overcome. And that remains the best hope for those of us who believe that the United States can recover its soft power even aftIraq and Abu Ghraib.


19/21


Pre-camp Wor


20/21


Pre-camp Wor

The way to defeat terrorism is by upholding human rights

AFX News, 3/10/05, lexis

MADRID (AFX) - UN chief Kofi Annan took a veiled swipe at the United States in a speech in which he said some countries were violating huma

rights in their fight against terrorism.

International human rights experts 'are unanimous in finding that many measures which states are currently adopting to counter terrorism infringe o

human rights and fundamental freedoms,' he said in the address to a conference on terrorism in Madrid.

Although he did not name any country, many of the attendees took that to be shielded criticism of US President George W. Bush's administrationwhich came in for frequent criticism from participants during the three-day conference.

The US-led war on Iraq, the curbing of civil liberties under its Patriot Act designed to boost data collection to detect terrorist suspects, and the extra-judicial

detention of hundreds of so-called 'enemy combatants' at the US facility at Guantanamo, Cuba, were all described as counterproductive in

the long term by several speakers.

'Human rights and the rule of law must always be respected.

'As I see it, terrorism is in itselfa direct attack on human rights and the rule of law. If we sacrifice them in our response, we are handing a

victory to the terrorists,' he said.

'Human rights law makes ample provision for strong counter-terrorist action, even in the most exceptional circumstances,' Annan told the audience, which included NATOSecretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, European Commission President Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, and the presidents of Afghanistan, Algeria, the DominicanRepublic, Pakistan and Portugal. Other top officials present included US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and German Foreig

Minister Joschka Fischer.

'Compromising human rights cannot serve the struggle against terrorism. On the contrary, it facilitates achievement of the terrorist's objectiv

--by ceding to him the moral high ground,and provoking tension, hatred and mistrust of government among precisely those parts of t

population where he is most likely to find recruits,' Annan said.

'Upholding human rights is not merely compatible with a successful counter-terrorism strategy.It is an essential element in it .'

and, It is a moral imperative that we must resist falling to the intolerance the government supplies us with.

. Sami A Al-Arian, 2/1/02. [P.H.D.., September. We Must Resist. http://www.academicfreespeech.com/sami_state6.html]

Since Sept. 11th our nation has been at war, not just with the ugly face of terrorism, but also with the ugly face of intolerance and bigotry

We should not sacrifice our freedoms and civil liberties to feel safe. Yet, this is what manypoliticians and powerful groups want us to submto. And we must say NO.We should not surrender to intimidation or fearso we may feel secure. Yet, this is what many politicians and powerful groupswant us to bow to. And we must say NO.

Albany Law Review, Winter 2003v67 i2 p501(25), The Torture Victim's Protection Act, the Alien Tort Claims Act, and Foucault's archaeology of knowledg(Michel Foucault)(Torture: Paradigms, Practices, and Policies), Author: Eric Engle

Recently, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) tried to reduce the United States' obligations under the Convention against Torture. (126)Though in this particular instance, the court intervened to overturn the BIA's decision, (127) a decision clearly in contravention to the Convention, it may be indicative of

future trend. If the United States gradually begins to accept small or insignificant amounts of torture, it will likely generateeven more enemies. To justify this progression, the United States might try to draw on foreign case law. In looking at the European Court of Human Rights, onefinds cases that arguably support finding exceptions to international law's absolute prohibition of torture. (128)

and, The current system of tribunals is unfairly stacked against the others

Carol D. Leonnig, Staff writer for the Seattle Times, 3/28/05 (Military tribunal ignored evidence on detainee)

Court-ordered tribunals

About 540foreign nationals are detained at Guantnamo Bay as suspected al-Qaida or Taliban fighters, or associates of terrorist groups. In

response to a landmark Supreme Court ruling in June that allowed the detainees to challenge their imprisonment, the military began holdingnew review tribunals last fall.
http://www.academicfreespeech.com/sami_state6.html%5Dhttp://www.academicfreespeech.com/sami_state6.html%5Dhttp://www.academicfreespeech.com/sami_state6.html%5D


21/21


Pre-camp WorDuring tribunal hearings, a panel of military officers considers public and secret evidence, and the detainee is offered an opportunity to state his case and answer questions

The panel then decides whether a captive should be designated an enemy combatant and be detained further. A second panel later reviews how dangerous the detainee

would be if released.

According to the Defense Department, 558 tribunal reviews have been held. In the 539 decisions made so far,506 detainees have been found to be enem

combatants and have been kept in prison.Thirty-three have been found not to be enemy combatants. Of those, four have been released.

In January, U.S. District Judge Joyce Hens Green ruled that the tribunals areillegal,unfairly stacked against detainees and in violation of

the Constitution. The Bush administration has appealed her decision.

1ac guantanamo bay (1)

Documents