Guantanamo Bay Aff HSSB

2AC Frontline
1. Interpretation: The role of the ballot is to decide between a topical plan and the status quo or a competitive policy alternative. Prefer our interpretation: a. Limits: tons of unpredictable K frameworks, weighing our advantages is key to informed decisions b. Ground: They can leverage framework to moot the 1AC, structural advantages like the block makes preserving aff ground a priority c. Topic education: their framework encourages generic Ks that get rehashed every year. We change the topic to learn about new things. d. Solves their offense they can read their K as a DA or offer a policy alternative to the plan that resolves the harms outlined in the K. 2. Limits are good- Agreement on what is being debated is a prior question that must be resolved first it is a pre-condition for debate to occur
Shively, Assistant Prof Political Science at Texas A&M, 2K [Ruth Lessl, Assistant Prof
Political Science at Texas A&M, 2000 Partisan Politics and Political Theory, p. 181-2, Accessed on July 5, 2013)][SP] The requirements given thus far are primarily negative. The ambiguists must say "no" to-they must reject and limit-some ideas and actions. In what follows, we will also find that they

must say "yes" to some things. In particular, they must say "yes" to the idea of rational persuasion. This means, first, that they must recognize the role of agreement in political contest, or the basic accord that is necessary to discord. The mistake that the ambiguists make here is a common one. The mistake is in thinking that agreement marks the end of contest-that consensus kills debate. But this is true only if the agreement is perfect-if there is nothing at all left to question or contest. In most cases, however, our agreements are highly imperfect. We agree on some matters but not on others, on generalities but not on specifics, on principles but not on their applications, and so on. And this kind of limited agreement is the starting condition of contest and debate. As John Courtney Murray

writes: We

hold certain truths; therefore we can argue about them. It seems to have been one of the corruptions of intelligence by positivism to assume that argument ends when agreement is reached. In a basic sense, the reverse is true. There can be no argument except on the premise, and within a context, of agreement. (Murray 1960, 10) In other words, we cannot argue about something if we are not communicating: if we cannot agree on the topic and terms of argument or if we have utterly different ideas about what counts as evidence or good argument. At the very least, we must agree about what it is that is being debated before we can debate it. For instance, one cannot have an argument about euthanasia with someone who thinks euthanasia is a musical group. One cannot successfully stage a sit-in if one's target audience simply thinks everyone is resting or if those doing the sitting have no complaints. Nor can one demonstrate resistance to a policy if no one knows that it is a policy. In other words, contest is meaningless if there is a lack of agreement or communication about what is being contested. Resisters, demonstrators, and debaters must have some shared ideas about the subject and/or the terms of their disagreements. The
participants and the target of a sit-in must share an understanding of the complaint at hand. And a demonstrator's audience must know what is being resisted. In short, the contesting of an idea

presumes some agreement about what that idea is and how one might go about intelligibly contesting it. In other words, contestation rests on some basic agreement or harmony.

1AC Policy

Plan
Guantanamo Bay is still open no closure coming
Herb, 12 (Jeremy, staff writer for the The Hill covering defense and national security, Obama faces
long odds to close Guantnamo Bay if he tries again, 10/21/12 03:00 PM ET, Online, http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/263125-obama-faces-long-odds-to-close-gitmo-ifhe-tries-again-, accessed 7/27/13) PE Congressional Republicans are skeptical the president was serious about a renewed attempt to close Gitmo. Rather, they suggest he was playing to his liberal supporters in the runup to the election. Its something hes saying to appeal to his base, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill in an interview. Ayotte, who has been one of the most outspoken Republicans on detention issues, said there was little support in either Congress or public opinion to close the facility and bring terrorists onto U.S. soil. Theres no way that [the administrations efforts to close Guantnamo] are going to be greater than his first term, she said. I dont see this as something hes suddenly going to be able to turn around. Obamas pledge to shutter the Guantnamo Bay military prison was one of his biggest campaign promises in 2008, and he signed

an executive order his first week in office to close the military facility on Cuban soil. Stewarts question, in fact, used the same phrase that Obama did at the executive order signing ceremony. But in the face of fierce opposition in Congress from Republicans, Obama backed away from his attempts to close the facility and move the terrorism trials from military commissions into federal courts. Pre-trial hearings for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind who the Obama administration wanted to try in downtown Manhattan, resumed this week at Guantnamo Bay. House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (RCalif.) said that bipartisan opposition prevented the administration from closing the prison when Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress. If he wants to try again, that is his choice, McKeon, who has helped lead GOP efforts to block transfers of Gitmo detainees in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), said in a statement to The Hill. I'd suggest that he precede the request with developing a comprehensible and consistent policy for detaining and interrogating terrorists, McKeon added. No one has ever argued that Guantanamo Bay is ideal, but before you talk about closing it you have to tell the country what you will replace it with. An Obama campaign official said that closing Guantnamo remains a priority for the president, and that he is committed to closing it in a second term. The official noted that even while Gitmo remains open, the Obama administration has reduced the detainee population. Mitt Romney supports keeping the prison open and increasing its size, the official said. Democratic aides in Congress acknowledge it would be difficult to gain enough support to close the military prison while Republicans retain control of the House. But they say that some traction has been made on the issue in the past year.

The United States federal government should provide technical cooperation over the transfer of United States owned physical assets in the Republic of Cuba.

Cred
Advantage 1 is Credibility Scenario 1 is Human Rights Failure to close Guantanamo signals US violations of Human Rights
Rosenthal 13 (Andrew, editorial director for New York Times, 1-23-13, The High Cost of Violating Human Rights, http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/23/the-highcost-of-violating-human-rights/?_r=0)

It used to be that the United Nations human rights commission denounced violations in some of the nastiest parts of the world sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa, junta-dominated Latin American countries, Communist-occupied Europe. These days, that office denounces the United States. Thats what happens when you operate a prison on the margins of the law and justice, where people are held without trial, on tainted evidence, without consideration for their rights under international treaties or the laws of the nation that built the prison. On Monday, the U.N. human rights chief, Navi Pillay, issued a statement condemning the Obama administration for failing to live up to its commitment to close the Guantanamo Bay
detention center. It was President George W. Bush, of course, who established the camp and claimed that its unfortunate inmates were not covered by United States law. The Supreme Court made short work of that nonsense. (Its always puzzled me that Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney sought legal refuge on an island that is owned by the Cuban Communists, of all people.) But under President Obama the United States has entrenched a system of arbitrary detention. By that, Ms. Pillay meant the utterly unnecessary amendments that were added to the military budget bill last year by a shabby alliance of hard-right Republicans and weak-kneed Democrats. They enshrined in law the idea of indefinite detention without rights. There is a lot of arguing about whether that law allows the military detention of American citizens. I think it does. A lot of very smart lawyers have told me Im right, others have said that Im wrong. There is no doubt in my mind that it sets up that possibility for a president less concerned about due process and justice than President Obama. Ms. Pillay also said she was disturbed at the failure to ensure accountability for serious human rights violations, including torture, that took place at Guantanamo Baymeaning President Obamas decision at the start of the administration not to look backward at the illegal activities of the Bush administration.

Failure to close Guantanamo spills over to undermine overall Human Rights credibility
Massimino 13(Elisa, President of Human Rights First, 5-1-2013, New York Daily News, On
Guantanamo, Obama must act now, http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gitmo-obama-act-article1.1331445#commentpostform)

Guantanamo is a stain on the nation and a national security problem Obama shouldnt wait to act His leadership could
While his renewed commitment is welcome doesnt have to, and , for the results of any review . immediate

both

end the hunger strike

and begin to remove the Guantanamo albatross from around the nations neck. As Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) noted last week, Obama has power hes not

using. The security and intelligence agencies have cleared 86 of Guantanamos 166 prisoners for transfer. The President could send them home or to third countries as l ong as the secretary of defense issues waivers outlining how the government would substantially mitigate potential security risks. Toward this same end, Obama should lift the self-imposed moratorium on transferring detainees to Yemen, the home country of more than half of those cleared for transfer. Last week, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, sent a letter to the White House offering to help the administration transition each of the 86 cleared detainees. She pointed out that the President needs to name someone to oversee the transfers. Ideally, that someone would be a prominent, well-regarded figure with a track record of solving high-profile problems.

The hunger
also

strike makes the need to act even more urgent. This humanitarian problem is a strategic one, hunger striker deaths would increase the damage that this site and symbol of human rights abuses has already done to the reputation of the U.S. Obama could resolve the immediate crisis the deeper problem : Imprisonment without trial for prisoners U.S. leadership on human rights erodes with every day the prison stays open.
government is force-feeding 21 people and sent 40 additional Navy medical specialists to Gitmo over the weekend. as evidenced by recent protests at the U.S. Embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, calling for release of the s. Their By beginning to transfer those who have been cleared. , ledge. Obama could then proceed to tackle opened in the first place. . The horrors highlighted by the hunger strike long predate it some , unjust military commissions for others: The most

A hundred people are starving themselves, almost two-thirds of the prisons population. The

The militarys Muslim adviser at Guan tanamo, in fact, has suggested the transfer of just one detainee might allow the strikers to step back from the Theyre inherent to Guantanamo, which should never have been

difficult problem standing in the way of closure is the group of prisoners whom the U.S. is unwilling to try, presumably because it lacks sufficient admissible evidence. After releasing those who have been cleared, the Obama administration should consider the remaining prisoners for transfer. In fact, the President promised to do just that: Hes missed his own deadline to establish review boar ds for those being held without charge or trial by more than a year. In facing up to this problem, Obama might also want to consider his legacy. He once again spoke eloquently Tuesday about the need to close Guantanamo. History will measure his actions aga inst his words. The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried, he said, is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests, and it needs to stop.

Closing Gitmo is a key first step it signals accountability

Hilde 09 (Thomas, professor at the university of Maryland school of Public Policy, 2009, Heinrich Boll
Foundation, Beyond Guantnamo , http://www.boell.de/downloads/Guantanamo-Layout.pdf)
Once policy is articulated beyond the bounds of the law and moral norms, its difficult to discern what grounds render it an improvement on bush administration policy. even as u.s. Attorney general eric holder unfolds his decisions on detainee policy over 2009 and perhaps beyond, these questions will remain attached to ambiguous outcomes, underdetermined policy, and unresolved inconsistencies in the treatment of human prisoners. in other words, a reformed detainee policy goes only a short distance towards the larger and important goal of restoring credibility through accountability. Accountability and Politics A second critical element for restoring credibility is accountability for the

closing Guantanamo is a first step. the prison closings demonstrate a respect for the rule of law and for the public moral element of accountability.
torture regime undertaken through concrete measures. President Obamas executive order complexities discussed above regarding the detainees, and the black sites presumptive good purpose of genuine accountability is defeated if undertaken (or not undertaken) for political reasons or if seriously yundermined b political upheaval or other comparable damages to a society.

Despite the

Yet these two strains of accountability legal and publicmoral accountability do not necessarily overlap. Accountability, moreover, must take into account political context. This is not to say that politics should take priority over law and morality. It is to raise the finer point that the

A democratic society is defined in part by its accountability mechanisms and the fairness of their application.
But we should be very careful. Resistance to investigation and accountability in the name of social unity has deep and manipulative political roots in nearly every country whose leaders have faced war crimes accusations. it would be very tempting simply to look ahead. The reason for pursuing accounta bility is not solely retribution for previous wrongs or, although vital, restoration of the rule of law.

Accountability rights framework

has a pragmatic function. it

we wish to perpetuate, acts

helps to ensure that acts destructive of any human such as torture, do not occur again.

Indeed, as discussed in the concluding

remarks, society reconstructs not only the rule of law but also a more robust human rights regime through demands for and concrete steps towards genuine accountability.

Human rights credibility solves inevitable extinction

Copeland 99 (Rhonda, Professor of Law NYU, New York City Law Review, p. 71-72)
The indivisible human rights framework survived the Cold War despite U.S. machinations to truncate it in the international arena. The framework is there to shatter the myth of the superiority.

in the face of systemic inequality and crushing poverty, violence by official and private actors, globalization of the market economy, and military and environmental depredation, the human rights framework is gaining new force and new dimensions. It is being broadened today by the movements of people in different parts of the world, particularly in the Southern Hemisphere and significantly of women, who understand the protection of human rights as a matter of individual and collective human survival and
Indeed, betterment. Also emerging is a notion of third-generation rights, encompassing collective rights that cannot be solved on a state-by-state basis and that call for new mechanisms of accountability, particularly affecting Northern countries. The emerging rights include human-centered sustainable development, environmental protection, peace, and security.

Given the poverty and

inequality in the United States as well as our role in the world, it is imperative that we bring the human rights framework to bear on both domestic and foreign policy.

Scenario 2 is Torture Treatment of detainees at Guantanamo justifies endless torture and suffering
Volha Piotukh, Edinburgh, 6 June 2008, PhD student, School of Politics and International Studies, (POLIS) The University of Leeds, Supervisors: Dr. Deiniol Jones and Prof. Alice Hills, Humanitarian Action and the War on Terror: Some Preliminary Thoughts on a New Biopolitical Nexus www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/.../Piotukh Paper.doc DS)

particular practices can also be read biopolitically, including what euphemistically was termed detention and interrogation techniques in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I believe
I would suggest that theorising on biopower and biopolitics can provide useful insights not only at the macro, but also at the micro level, as that what matters most for such a reading is not the torture as such, or the persistent denial of such facts by the U.S. Administration, or the hypocrisy of its rhetoric stressing the full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, or even the double-standards inherent in accusing other countries of resorting to torture and similar practices, but the fact that Referring to Foucaults concept of biopower as a power that fosters life or disallows it to the point of death, Wadiwel suggests that it can () capture and subject life, for an indefinite duration, to a measured violence () In this violence a frictional violence the sovereign reveals a commitment to life, a life whose time is measured by pain (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). Torture, therefore, can be considered as an ugly form of life preservation. A tort urer has to maintain life, to not let death prevent the continued infliction of pain, which can become life long (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 117). Thus, the Nazi Protective Custody directive of October 26, 1939 contained the following condition: (..) the duration of detention in a concentration camp must always be indicated as indefinite (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). The detainees of detention camps scattered all over the world, share the same fate, as they have been promised release only upon cessation of GWOT, which, as we know, is a war with imprecise objectives, and no definite end. This indefinite detention itself becomes a form of torture. Agambens theorising can also provide useful insights. For example, the tortured were those categorised as unlawful or enemy combatants terms unknown in international law. These definitions allowed the U.S. Administration to deprive these people of the protection provided by either IHL or human rights law. Moreover, they could not appeal to the U.S. national courts as, given the location of the camps, the courts would not have jurisdiction to consider appeals of foreigners captured and held abroad. Thus,

torture has become legitimised and even subject to regulation.

these people were turned into Homo Sacer, stripped of anything that could stand between them and the torturer as a personification of bio-power, caught in the state of exception where law does not apply in any other way than by no longer applying. Anything becomes possible, including the decisions that practices that only amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading can be tolerated, anything up to the point when tortured are finally left with nothing but their own living being, felt only through an endless suffering (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 120).

Failure to close Guantanamo Bay signals US endorsement of torture that spills over to justify torture elsewhere
Lithwick 8 (Dahlia Lithwick, contributing editor at Newsweek and senior editor at Slate. B.A in
English from Yale, J.D. in law from Stanford. A Guantanamo Homecoming. Daily Beast 10 October 2008. Web.) http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/10/10/a-guant-namo-homecoming.html EW

, the idea was that breaking the law abroad would somehow preclude us from
What happens at Gitmo, stays at Gitmo. That was always the hope. When the Bush administration fenced off a dusty little patch of lawlessness in Cuba

breaking it at home. But last week revealedyet againthat the worst of Guantnamo was always destined to spill over into the United States. Gitmo's lawlessness is now our own. The prison camp was
created to construct a "legal black hole," a place where U.S. and international human-rights law would go to die. The case of 17 Uighurs Chinese Muslims from western China's Xinjiang regionis one of the blackest chapters of the story. The Uighurs fled Chinese persecution (including forced abortion and banishment) and settled in Afghanistan. The 2001 U.S. bombing raids forced them to move to Pakistan, and they were allegedly turned over by local villagers to American authorities in exchange for a $5,000 bounty per head. They were transferred to Guantnamo more than six years ago and were cleared for release in 2004. The U.S. government credibly feared they would be tortured if returned to China, and since no other country will take them, they have remained at Gitmo all this time. In September, an appeals court found that one of the Uighurs, Huzaifa Parhat, had been labeled an "enemy combatant" and subject to indefinite detention, based on "bare assertions." The Bush administration has conceded that none of the Uighurs is an enemy combatant. Last week a federal judge in Washing-ton ordered that all 17 Uighurs be freed, immediately, into the care of American supporters. Bush administration officials managed to delay their release in a last-minute petition to the appeals court. These Uighurs didn't just steam into Guantnamo Bay off a Carnival cruise. They were brought here in error and abused in error. And now to remedy that error they will be forced to stay there indefinitely. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a landmark Supreme Court decision this past summer, "The costs of delay can no

." The Justice Department managed to halt the ruling, by repeating discredited claims that the Uighurs associated with terrorists, and squawking about the perils of bringing Guantnamo to Washington. But in truth, Guantnamo has been in Washington for some time. Newly released military documents prove that two American citizens held for years as enemy combatants at Navy brigs in Virginia and Charleston, S.C., had been interrogated and incarcerated according to the Guantnamo rules, not U.S. law. According to e-mails that surfaced last week, Yaser Esam Hamdi and Jose Padilla were interrogated by the CIA and Defense Intelligence Agency for months and years in the early part of the war on terror , and deprived of light, correspondence and human contact, while their nervous interrogators worried for their sanity.
longer be borne by those who are held in custody

Torture always outweighs

Twiss 2007(Sumner, Torture, Justification, and Human Rights: Toward an Absolute Proscription. 2007
Human Rights Quarterly, Volume 29, Number 2)

The judgment that torture is prima facie wrong falls short of the judgment that such practices are always wrong or that the right not to be tortured is non-derogative. At this point, we need to turn to further subsequent developments on the proscription of torture by the international human rights communityin the
form of the 1966 Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (which legally implemented pertinent articles of the UDHR), the 1975 Declaration on Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, and the 1984 Convention against such practices.24 The 1966 convention expressly states that no

derogation can be made from the article proscribing torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, including for reasons of exigency in time of public emergency that threaten the life of a nation. The 1975
declaration avers that no state may permit or tolerate such practices and, further, that exceptional circumstances, such as a state of war or a threat of war, internal political instability, or any other public emergency, may not be invoked as a justification for such practices. The 1984 convention defines torture as: [A]ny act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or
coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. 25 It

also rules out any exceptional justifying circumstances whatsoever and adds that an order from a superior officer may not be invoked.

Scenario 3 is Soft Power Maintaining Guantanamo undermines U.S. soft Power in the Squo
Wagner 9 (Coleman Wagner Coleman Wagner is a senior at the University of North Texas majoring in
political science. His studies focus on international relations and comparative government and politics with minors in Spanish and business management. He is highly involved in youth ministry and spent the summer facilitating high school mission trips on the Red Lake Native American Reservation in Northern Minnesota. Coleman will graduate in December 2009 and plans to pursue a Ph.D. He aspires to a teaching and research career in political science at the university level. Soft Power and International Public Opinion: U.S Presidents and the Treatment of Prisoners of War http://web3.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/wp-content/2009/08/Wagner_Coleman.pdf) SJH

During the next seven years, a series of memos and reports revealed the use of enhanced interrogation techniques by CIA interrogators. Several reports exchanged between the U.S. Attorney Generals office and the White House attempted to define torture and decipher whether or not enhanced interrogation techniques fell under the classification of torture. One memo written by the Deputy Assistant Attorney General specifically states, We conclude that those treaties [the Geneva Conventions] do not protect members of
Al Qaeda and the Taliban militia (Bybee, 2002, p. 1). President Bush confirmed the Deputy Assistants conclusion, deciding n ot to apply the Geneva Convention to members of Al Qaeda because itwas not a state actor nor did it sign the Geneva Convention (Bush, 2002). According to the Department of Justices Office of Legal Council (OLC), enhanced interrogation techniques, when combined or used individually, were not considered illegal under the federal anti-torture statute (Yoo, 2002). President Bush also expanded the power of the executive branch in the detention and prosecution of terror suspects. The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 gave the Attorney General the power to retain a terror suspect for an indefinite period of time without charges if he/she is demonstrated to be a threat to the safety of U.S. citizens. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Senate Bill 3930) disallowed a terror suspect, labeled an enemy combatant, the right to challenge the legality of his/her detention, commonly known as habeas corpus. This act also established U.S. military tribunals in which enemy combatants of other nations were to be tried for their terrorist activities against the United States. Theoretical Impact on Soft Power I expect two major issues in former President George W. Bushs policy on the treatment of prisoners of war to affect the United States soft power. First, I predict a negative reaction from the international community to the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay. I predict that enhanced

interrogation techniques damaged the United States reputation abroad and undercut its Soft power. The use of these techniques exposes the United States to accusations of hypocrisy. If the international community considered enhanced interrogation techniques to constitute torture, U.S. condemnations of torture abroad should be seen as hollow and hypocritical. Furthermore, this perception of U.S. hypocrisy should weaken Americas ability to promote human rights and proper treatment of prisoners. I also predict that the detention of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay will be seen as unlawful by the international community. This perspective will be strengthened by the deprivation of due process requirements in the U.S. Constitution. Simply put, Americas refusal to apply due process provisions of the U.S. Constitution to detainees of Guantanamo Bay will stain its image abroad. The United States has granted to itself the right to prosecute citizens of other nations in U.S. military courts for acts of terrorism. The international
community will see this as a staunch act of unilateralism in a multilateral war on terrorism. Observed Impact on U.S. Soft Power In regards to the first expectation, the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, considered torture by many in the international community, did spark media attention abroad. An a rticle coming from a rural British community claimed the champions of freedom and democracy have lost the moral ground by using methods of mental torture (Riasat, 2002, 3). The Independent, a media source based in England reported that, the allies hold thousands of Muslims in illegal incarceration; they are tortured and killed too (Alibhai-Brown, 2004, 7). Phillips emphasized the immorality of physically and psychologically stressful methods of interrogation despite their lack of physical contact (2004, 26). One Australian paper discussed he idea of a torture warrant, a legal permit to carry out torture for the purpose of extracting vital information, but, he rejected the idea, calling it a contradiction to American values (The Torture Time Bomb, 2005). Media coverage of several obscure cases and issues of torture brought negative attention to the United States as well. For example, in 2005, footage of a U.S. prison guard burning the Quran in front of a detainee infuriated the Arab world. In protest, Iran criticized the prison and called the act abhorrent (Iran News Political Desk, 2005). In 2004 and 2005, the United States was accused of prisoner rendering, or the act of transferring a prisoner to another country to be tortured. One prisoner claimed to have been extradited to Egypt for torture and then sent back to the United States for further interrogation (Fisher, 2005). In 2004, a State Department Human Rights Report accused Myanmar of human rights violations. The report backfired on the State Department as Myanmar released its own report of U.S. human rights violations in Guantana mo Bay (U.S. Has Lost Its Moral Authority, 2004). Even a Chinese human rights group denounced the United States, referring to its promotion of human rights as extremely hypocritical (U.S.Human Rights Report, 2004) International journalism, however, was not the only source of condemnation toward Guantanamo Bay during the Bush administration. In 2005, the U.N. requested that international and American non-governmental organizations release any and all evidence of torture and prisoner abuse in Guantanamo Bay (Deen, 2005). Not long before this request, a South Asian news source claimed the U.N. needed to inspect the prison and its d etainees, unopposed by the United States (U.S. Should Not Interfere, 2005). As mentioned above, the most pressing issue regarding Bushs policy on Guantanamo Bay seemed to be the holding of prisoners without filing charges. This aspect of Bushs policy attracted major criticisms regarding the United States commitment to international institutions, human rights, and t he authenticity of its moral values. Hypocrisy seemed to be a popular theme in reference to the United States detention of terror suspects. Groves, of the Birmingham Post in Great Britain wrote, the cases of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay will be highlighted as a flagrant breach of the most basic human rights (2003, 6). In criticizing Americas refusal to charge some detainees in Guantanamo, a writer for the London Times wrote,

Guantanamo makes it awkward for the U.S. to promote democracy and respect for law without getting charges of hypocrisy (Maddox, 2005, 4). An intense article written by a journalist in Beirut reads, Its actions are ensuring that the detainees are kept in their legal limbo, denied a right that serves as a basic safeguard against arbitrary

detention, disappearance and torture, or other cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment (Daily Star Staff, 2005, 1). An article published in the Agence France-Presse explained the hypocrisy well; In holding prisoners in
dubious legal circumstances and in establishing closed military tribunals, the U.S. calls these principles [commitment to democracy and liberty] Into question (Bush Seeks to Calm Arab Anger, 2004, 7).Several media sources accused the United States of overstepping internatio nal norms and laws. Amnesty International accused the United States of being more concerned with getting around international laws which prohibit torture than with safeguarding human rights (U.S. war on terror, 2 004, 1). Even an article in Canada, the United States neighbor to the North, refers to the U.S. as a rogue nation (Sundar, 2002)

Soft power is key to sustain U.S. engagement this solves terrorism, economic collapse, spread of disease, proliferation, and global WMD conflict
Reiss 8 (Mitchell B., Vice Provost of International Affairs College of William & Mary, Restoring
America's Image: What the Next President Can Do, Survival, October, 50(5))
But first, there is another question to be answered: why should Americans care if the United States is liked or not? After all, foreign policy is not a popularity contest. Policies that are controversial today may look better in a few years. Perhaps America's unpopularity is just the price that must be paid for being the world's most powerful country. Yet Americans do care, and their desire to be respected by the world has been reflected in the campaign rhetoric of both McCain and Obama. This desire extends beyond the normal, near-universal human wish to be liked, or at least not misunderstood or hated. Americans still believe in John Winthrop's

there is another, larger reason for caring about the rise of anti- Americanism, one that is related to the United States' status as the world's only superpower. No one country can defeat today's transnational threats on its own. Terrorism, infectious disease, environmental pollution, weapons of mass destruction, narcotics and human trafficking - all these can only be solved by states acting together. If others mistrust the United States or actively work against it, building effective coalitions and promoting a liberal international order that benefits both Americans and hundreds of millions of other people around the world will be far more challenging. Ultimately, if the United States has to go it alone or bear most of the costs while others are seen as free riders, the American people are unlikely to sustain engagement with the world with the same intensity, or even at all. The history of the last century demonstrates that when the United
description of America as a 'shining city on the hill' and want others to view the United States that way as well. But States retreats from the world, bad things happen. The United States rejected the League of Nations and turned inwards in the 1920s and 1930s, contributing to the Great Depression and the onset of the Second World War. After the Vietnam War, a weakened and inward-looking America prompted some Asian countries to start their own nuclear-weapons programmes, emboldened Islamic fundamentalists to attack American interests, and encouraged the Soviet Union to occupy Afghanistan. While there are some who say this couldn't happen today, that America couldn't pull up the drawbridge and retreat behind the parapets, recent opinion polls in the

It is hard to imagine any scenario in which an isolated, disengaged United States would be a better friend and ally to other countries, better promote global prosperity, more forcefully
United States reveal a preference for isolationism not seen since the end of the Vietnam War.

Closing Guantanamo overcomes all their alt causes

Nye 08(Joseph, Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University and Author, Barack Obama and
Soft Power June 12, 2008 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-nye/barack-obama-and-softpow_b_106717.html) Soft power is the ability to obtain the outcomes one wants through attraction rather than using the carrots and sticks of payment or coercion. As I describe in my new book The Powers to Lead, in individuals soft power rests on the skills of emotional intelligence, vision, and communication that Obama possesses in abundance. In nations, it rests upon culture (where it is attractive to others), values (when they are applied without hypocrisy), and policies (when they are inclusive and seen as legitimate in the eyes of others.) Polls show that American soft power has declined quite dramatically in much of the world over the past eight years. Some say this is structural, and resentment is the price we pay for being

the biggest kid on the block. But it

matters greatly whether the big kid is seen as a friend or a bully. In much of the world we have been seen as a bully as a result of the Bush Administration policies. Unfortunately, a President Obama will inherit a number of policy problems such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran and North Korea where hard power plays a large role. If he drops the ball on any of these issues, they will devour his political capital. At the same time, he will have to be careful not to let this inherited legacy of problems define his presidency. Some time between November 4 and January 20, he will need to indicate a new tone in foreign policy which shows that we will once again export hope rather than fear. This could take several forms: announcement of an intent to close Guantanamo; dropping the term "global war on terror;" creation of a special
bipartisan group to formulate a new policy on climate change; a "listening trip" to Asia, and so forth. Electing Obama will greatly help restore America's soft power as a nation that can recreate itself, but the election alone will not be sufficient. It is not too soon to start thinking about symbols and policies for the days immediately after the election.

I-Law
Advantage 2 is I-Law Detainees have fundamental rights under international law the US failure to comply causes other countries ignore them as well
Legal Information Institute 7 (The Legal Information Institute is a public service of Cornell Law
School. Boumediene v. Bush (06-1195); Al Odah v. United States (06-1196) December 5, 2007, http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/06-1195) Amici for the detainees argue that international

law entitles detainees to certain fundamental rights, even if the Constitution does not apply to them. The International Humanitarian Law Experts ("IHLE") amicus brief argues that the Geneva Conventions, which the United States played a lead role in drafting, are universally accepted. The Geneva Conventions aim to "protect[] persons who do not, or who can no longer, participate in hostilities," including prisoners of war and civilians. The IHLE brief notes in
particular Common Article 3, which protects requires a "regularly constituted court" to provide judicial guarantees to those no longer engaged in hostilities. The failure of the United States to follow

the Geneva Conventions "weakens the entire international legal regime and invites other signatories to disregard their own treaty obligations." By refusing to
apply the Conventions to detainees, the United States harms its ability to insist that the Conventions protect Americans detained during overseas conflicts. Other amici argue that the United States

violates international standards by withholding habeas rights from detainees. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights argues that Article 9 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("ICCPR") requires that detainees must have access to a court that provides basic procedural guarantees of a fair hearing to review
contest the legality of their detention. "Continued detention without justification and review," the High Commissioner argues, is "inherently arbitrary." CSRTs do not qualify as "courts" under the ICCPR, and they provide insufficient review. Amici maintain that the United States ratified the ICCPR and is therefore bound by these agreed-upon international obligations.

Closing Guantanamo Bay is the only way to ensure US compliance with international law
Human Rights Watch 13 (Human Rights Watch citing Kenneth Roth, the executive director of the
Human Rights Watch. US: Pledges to End War, Close Guantanamo May 24, 2013, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/24/us-pledges-end-war-close-guantanamo) In his speech, President Obama broke little new ground on the issue of prosecuting Guantanamo detainees except to signal a plan to transfer some to the US for trials before military commissions. While moving the commissions to the US might address some logistical concerns, it would

not change the fact that they are fundamentally unfair. Obama addressed the situation of 46 detainees who were designated by an inter-agency task force as too dangerous to release but who could not be tried in some cases, he said, because the evidence against them had been compromised or was inadmissible in court. While Obama said he was confident this legacy problem could be resolved consistent with the rule of law, he provided no indication that the 46 men would not be detained indefinitely. If these detainees cannot be prosecuted, they should be released, Human Rights Watch said. Prolonged indefinite detention without charge or trial violates international human rights law, Roth said. But Obamas apparent plan to move detainees to the US for prosecution before discredited military commissions relocated in the US is not the answer. Though their rules have been rewritten three times since the military commissions were first formed in 2005, and additional procedural protections were added under Obama's presidency, they still do not meet international fair trial standards, Human Rights Watch said. Among other flaws, the commissions lack judicial independence, allow the admission of certain coerced testimony, permit the military to hand-pick the jury pool, and fail to protect privileged attorney-client communications. Obama should take to heart the resounding applause to his

statement that Guantanamo should never have been opened, and close it once and for all, Roth said. Ending indefinite detention, restoring the use of federal civilian courts, and acknowledging the wrong that has been done to the men imprisoned illegally would show the president wants to close not only the physical site of Guantanamo, but also the idea of Guantanamo.

Strengthening International Law is key to the Middle East Peace Process

Michael Lynk, Notest for a Presentation on International Law and the Middle East conflict, CEPAL Annual Meeting, Parliament Hill, Ottawa, November 29, 2001, p. 7. Available from the World Wide Web at: http://www.cepal.ca/documents/OttawaSpeechNov011.pdf, accessed 1/10/05.

reliance upon the relevant principles of international law would finally create something close to a level playing field between Israel and Palestine.
And fourth,
ample imbalance in power politics is the guiding force in peace-making, then we are going to see political agreements that are not only one-sided, but are unworkable precisely because they are so onesided

Israel has a European-level economy with a GNP of around $18,000 (US) per capita, an extremely powerful and wellequipped army and air force, and th e worlds only superpower as its financial and military patron . The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a dismal economy with an annual per capita GNP of around $1,300 (US) that has actually contracted by 20% since the Oslo agreement in 1993, a lightly armed police force, and no contiguous territory. As long as this

. Applying the principles of international law, rather than the politics of power, is the essential pre-condition to ensuring a level playing field at the Middle East negotiating table, and a level playing field is the essential pre-condition to arriving at a fair and lasting peace settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Now is key for the Peace Process talks can succeed

Bratu 7-19 (Becky, NBC News Editor, Graduate of Columbia School of Journalism, Kerry Says
Israel, Palestinians Laid Groundwork For New Peace Talks, MSNBC, 2013, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/07/19/19559453-kerry-says-israel-palestinians-laidgroundwork-for-new-peace-talks?lite)

AMMAN, Jordan -- Secretary of State John

Kerry announced Friday that Israel and the Palestinians have laid the groundwork to resume stalled peace talks. Addressing reporters before he flew back from the Jordanian capital of Amman, Kerry announced "an agreement that establishes a basis for resuming direct final status negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis." Peace talks broke down in 2010. He
said his negotiating counterparts will join him in Washington, D.C. next week or "shortly thereafter," but that he will be the one making public comments on behalf of the whole group. "The

representatives of two proud people today have decided that the difficult road ahead is worth traveling," he added. On his visit, Kerry had marathon talks with Palestinian
leader Mahmoud Abbas - including a stop Friday in Ramallah. Kerry also met Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat in Amman and had been consulting Israeli officials by telephone, a U.S. official said. The Palestinian leadership on Thursday did not accept Kerry's latest plan, but signaled that it was leaving the door open for him to continue pushing for talks. "This is a significant and welcome step forward," Kerry said Friday upon making his announcement.

Negotiations, which have ebbed and flowed over two decades, collapsed in late 2010 in a dispute over Israeli settlement building in the occupied West Bank and East Jerusalem, territories it captured in the 1967 Middle East war.

Peace Process is key to avoid Mideast War US credibility is key

Elsner, 13 -- former Reuters chief political correspondent
[Alan, 30-years experience in international journalism, former Reuters State Department correspondent, former professor at Princeton, Dartmouth, American and George Washington University, "Conditions Not Perfect for Israeli-Palestinian Peace -- But May Be as Good as They'll Get," Huffington Post, 7-17-13, www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-elsner/israel-palestine-peace-process_b_3606126.html, accessed 7-18-13, mss] To those who argue that Israel should not make peace with Arab nations because they are insufficiently democratic, the obvious response is that precisely the reverse is true. Only through peace treaties, endorsed and enshrined by the international community, can Israel hope to achieve security and predictability in its relations with its neighbors. Some of the same doubters who bring up Egypt also argue that Kerry is misspending his time in pursuing an IsraeliPalestinians peace deal because there are so many other issues that are more important clamoring for his attention. They are also dead wrong for many reasons. As Kerry realizes, solving this conflict is a prime U.S. national security interest

because it is used by our enemies worldwide as a recruiting tool for terrorists and to stoke anti-American feeling and because it undermines our efforts to champion political rights and the cause of democracy and self-determination around the world. Unlike Egypt and Syria, this is the one issue where the U.S. has the leverage and ability to actually
play a constructive role . The civil war in Syria and unrest in Egypt are both very important -- but it is not clear what the U.S. can or should do and how much influence it can exert. However, on IsraelPalestine, the U.S. remains the indispensible broker with enormous influence on both

Israeli-Palestinian peace would inject some stability into an unstable region. It would strengthen moderates, bolster the vulnerable government of Jordan, a key U.S. strategic ally, weaken Iran and its allies and proxies and pave the way for relations between Israel and the important Gulf States. It would springboard the Palestinian economy and act as a driver for economic activity throughout the Middle East, eventually boosting Egypt too. Without viable peace talks, the status quo could quickly fall apart ; instability will grow between Israel and the Palestinians, heightening the threat of violence in
the West Bank and a new crisis between Israel and Hamas in Gaza. Now may not be the perfect time -but tomorrow is likely to be worse and the next day worse still. This may be the best chance we still have. Finally, although it is a tough task, it is not impossible and there are some reasons for cautious optimism. Both Israelis and Palestinians continue to support two states as recent polls have again demonstrated. Kerry's indirect negotiations have been substantive and have narrowed gaps between the parties forming a better framework for talks than in some past efforts . And neither side wants to be blamed for failure. It's easy to find excuses not to make peace but that attitude achieves nothing. Working for peace is harder, no doubt, but the rewards are so great that it would be criminal not to try.

parties and a clear policy -- namely the two-state solution. Securing

Mid-east wars cause extinction

Russell, 9 (James A. Russell, Senior Lecturer, National Security Affairs, Naval Postgraduate
School, 9 (Spring) Strategic Stability Reconsidered: Prospects for Escalation and Nuclear War in the Middle East IFRI, Proliferation Papers//, #26, __http://www.ifri.org/downloads/PP26_Russell_2009.pdf__)

Strategic stability in the region is thus undermined by various factors: (1) asymmetric interests in the bargaining framework that can introduce unpredictable behavior from actors; (2) the presence of non-state actors that introduce unpredictability into relationships between the antagonists; (3) incompatible assumptions about the structure of the deterrent relationship that makes the bargaining framework strategically unstable; (4) perceptions by Israel and the United States that its window of opportunity for military
action is closing, which could prompt a preventive attack; (5) the prospect that Irans response to pre emptive attacks could involve unconventional weapons, which could prompt escalation by Israel and/or the United States; (6) the lack of a communications framework to build trust and cooperation among framework participants. These systemic weaknesses in the coercive bargaining framework all suggest that escalation by any the parties could happen either on purpose or as a result of miscalculation or the pressures of wartime circumstance. Given these factors, it is disturbingly easy to imagine scenarios under which a

conflict could quickly escalate in which the regional antagonists would consider the use of chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to believe
the nuclear taboo can somehow magically keep nuclear weapons from being used in the context of an unstable strategic framework. Systemic asymmetries between actors in fact suggest a certain increase in the probability of war a war in which escalation could happen quickly and from a variety of

participants. Once such a war starts, events would likely develop a momentum all their own and decisionmaking would consequently be shaped in unpredictable ways. The international community must take this possibility seriously, and muster every tool at its disposal to prevent such an outcome, which would be an unprecedented disaster for the peoples of the region, with substantial risk for the entire

world.

CMR
Advantage 3 is CMR CMR is on the brink peacetime cooperation will be key to long term CMR
Tilghman, 13 (Andrew, Staff Writer, JCS chief: Time to rethink civil-military relations, Jul. 12,
2013, Navy Times, cites Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, Online, http://www.navytimes.com/article/20130712/NEWS05/307120023/JCS-chief-Time-rethink-civilmilitary-relations, accessed 7/17/13) PE

The nations top military officer is urging troops to brace for a postwar era in which the relationship between the military and the civilian population it is
sworn to protect will change in fundamental ways. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey offered a rare public reflection on the cultural link between the all-volunteer force and civilian society and sought to dispel stereotypes that have arisen since 2001. Together, we need to discuss who we are and what our wars mean to us, Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, wrote in a July 3 op-ed in The Washington Post. His office subsequently provided essentially the same piece to Military Times. Now is the defining moment in our relationship with the 9/11 veterans, Dempsey wrote, urging the country to gain a better understanding of who those returning warriors are as individuals. All of us in uniform volunteered to serve, but that doesnt make us all heroes. Many of us have seen the horrors of war, but that doesnt make us all victims. Todays warriors and their stories are more diverse than these simple characterizations suggest. Dempseys call for a national discussion comes at a challenging time for civil-military relations, according to several experts, career officers and others who spoke to Military Times. In Washington, a fierce debate is in full swing about the future of defense spending that could veer into a bitter battle over pay and benefits for the people who serve in uniform. Across the country, veterans are returning in large numbers, some of them struggling to adjust or suffering from physical or psychological injuries. And as the war in Afghanistan winds down, the military may begin to lose its privileged place in American culture. The moral contract between the people and the military is changing. It changes after every war, said James Burk, a civil-military affairs expert who teaches at Texas A&M University. I think Dempsey is taking a stand against polarization and calling for a serious discussion about what the military community needs and how we achieve those objectives.

Plan is key to improve CMR the Joint Chiefs want Guantanamo to be closed
Burns, 8 (Robert, AP Military writer, Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo, January 13, 2008,
Online, Huffington Post, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20080113/guantanamo-jointchiefs/#, accessed 7/23/13) PE

The chief of the U.S. military said Sunday he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been "pretty damaging" to the image of the United States. "I'd like to see it shut down," Adm. Mike Mullen said in an interview with three

reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October. His visit came two days after the sixth anniversary of the prison's opening in January 2002. He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make and that he understands there are numerous complex legal questions the administration believes would have to be settled first, such as where to move prisoners. The admiral also noted that some of Guantanamo Bay's prisoners are deemed high security threats. During a tour of Camp Six, which is a high-security facility holding about 100 prisoners, Mullen got a firsthand look at some of the cells; one prisoner glared at Mullen through his narrow cell window as U.S. officers explained to the Joint Chiefs chairman how they maintain almost-constant watch over each prisoner.

Poor civil-military relations would erode effectiveness of US military

Kohn, Prof. of History and Chair of the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina,and Feaver ,Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 2001 (Richard H and Peter D. Civilians and Soldiers)
The general consensus on how capable the U.S. military is at doing what civilian society asks of it could also mask disagreements about what sorts of problems could

one way a civil-military gulf might threaten national security would be if the military and civilians hold sharply divergent opinions on what hurts military effectiveness and therefore, by implication, endorse sharply different policies for preserving the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. Indeed, John Hillen has argued that if [the military] goes too far in pleasing the social mores of contemporary society, it may lose the culture needed for success in war(Hillen 1998a). TheTlSS survey asked respondents to indicate whether they believed civil-military alienation would erode military effectiveness and then whether they believed certain conditions, such as
erode that effectiveness. The culture gap thesis suggests that "Americans' lack of trust in the uniformed leaders" or "a ban on language and behavior that encourage camaraderie among soldiers," were in fact occurring and if so, whether they would hurt military effectiveness. If there is a civil-militaryconsensus on these issues, military effectiveness might still be a matter for concern, but any

a gulf between civilians and the military threatened core values that at least some influential groups believe to be essential to the military's ability to be effective in combat. As Figure 3.7
problems would not be exacerbated by a civil-military culture gap. Dissensus, however, would be evidence that shows, elite military officers and elite civilians, particularly elite civilians with no military experience, gave differing responses to the statement, "Even if civilian society did not always appreciate the essential military values of commitment and unselfishness, our armed forces could still maintain required traditional standards" (Question 33h). Somewhat contrary to conventional wisdom, it is the elite military that has the more optimistic view, and it is the elite non-veteran civilians who express the greatest level of concern about the gap-even though it is their attitudes that comprise the largest gap with the military. By contrast, a clear consensus emerges when we look at a series of responses concerning potential threats to military effectiveness.9 Elite civilians and the elite military officers generally agree on whether a particular problem is happening in the military today. What differences of opinion do appear are subtle and marginal, far more so than one would expect given the ambiguity inherent in the topic: even experts have trouble agreeing on what is necessary for military effectiveness. After a first cut, this uncertainty does not appear in the TISS survey. We cannot say conclusively what this means, but it does suggest the optimistic finding that military effectiveness may be an issue on which there is a healthy civil-military consensus.

Military effectiveness is key to US hegemony

International Herald Tribune 5/1/2008 (International Hegemony, May 1 2008,
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/01/news/30oxan.php) Wellsprings of power. US hegemonic power is exercised globally through several key institutions and mechanisms: Economic power. Following the Second World War, US economic dominance was so great that it was able to help reconstruct post-war Western Europe via the Marshall Plan. Although its relative advantage has since declined, Washington continues to play a key role in global economic affairs; its intervention helped halt the spiraling depreciation of the Mexican peso in 1994. The dollar also remains the world's dominant reserve, or 'numeraire', currency. Military might. US defense spending

continues massively to overshadow the military outlays of other societies. Substantial elements of the US armed forces are still permanently based in many areas abroad. While this overseas basing is, in part, a residue of the old Cold War security apparatus, many areas of the world welcome these troops as the guarantors of stability and the regional balance of power. Post-1945 legacy.
The United States had a major role in structuring post-1945 political and social systems. For example, both the German Basic Law of 1949 and Japan's 1947 constitution reflected significant US input. Both countries were subject to US influence directly through occupation forces, but also intellectually and culturally as their new governments operated under US-influenced constitutional systems. While such influence is today much diminished, it has not entirely vanished. International organizations. Washington dominates key international organizations, notably NATO and the UN. NATO, which once had a limited collective security role centered around defending Western Europe from a Soviet attack, is slowly moving towards an expanded 'out of area' mission under US prodding. Despite President George Bush's occasionally confrontational stance towards the UN, the United States remains highly influential there due to the size of its financial contribution and Security Council veto. Aligning allies. The United States works assiduously to promote its interests by influencing how other states align or realign. For example, it has promoted Turkey's candidacy for EU membership, as a means of promoting political and economic reform. Ideas and culture. US ideas and popular culture, from jazz to art and cinema, have infectiously spread -- rendering 'Americanization' among the most significant and disputed phenomena of the contemporary era. Americanization has its antinomy, 'anti-Americanism', and this cleavage operates globally. 'Globalization' both overlaps with, and is distinct from, Americanization, but the two phenomena are often conjoined in political analysis and popular discourse.

US military power is key to prevent extinction

Thomas P.M. Barnett, chief analyst, Wikistrat, The New Rules: Leadership Fatigue Puts U.S. and Globalization, at Crossroads, WORLD POLITICS REVIEW, 3711, www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8099/the-newrules-leadership-fatigue-puts-u-s-and-globalization-at-crossroads

Events in Libya are a further reminder for Americans that we stand at a crossroads in our continuing evolution as the world's sole full-service superpower. Unfortunately, we are increasingly seeking change without cost, and shirking from risk because we are tired of the responsibility. We don't know who we are anymore, and our president is a big part of that problem. Instead of leading us, he explains to us. Barack Obama would have us believe that he is practicing strategic patience. But many experts and ordinary citizens alike have concluded that he is actually beset by strategic incoherence -- in effect, a man overmatched by the job. It is worth first examining the larger picture: We live in a time of arguably the greatest structural change in the global order yet endured, with this historical moment's most amazing feature being its relative and absolute lack of mass violence. That is something to consider when Americans contemplate military intervention in Libya, because if we do take the step to prevent largerscale killing by engaging in some killing of our own, we will not be adding to some fantastically imagined global death count stemming from the ongoing "megalomania" and "evil" of American "empire." We'll be engaging in the same sort of system-administering activity that has marked our stunningly successful stewardship of global order since World War II. Let me be more blunt: As the guardian of globalization, the U.S. military has been the greatest force for peace the

world has ever known. Had America been removed from the global dynamics
that governed the 20th century, the mass murder never would have ended. Indeed, it's entirely conceivable there would now be no identifiable human civilization left, once nuclear weapons entered the killing equation. But the world did not keep sliding down that path of

perpetual war. Instead, America stepped up and changed everything by ushering in our now-perpetual great-power peace. We introduced the international liberal trade order known as globalization and played loyal Leviathan over its spread. What resulted was the collapse of empires, an explosion of democracy, the persistent spread of human rights, the liberation of women, the
doubling of life expectancy, a roughly 10-fold increase in adjusted global GDP and a profound and persistent reduction in battle deaths from state-based conflicts. That is what American "hubris" actually delivered. Please remember that the next time some TV pundit sells you the image of "unbridled" American military power as the cause of global disorder instead of its cure. With self-deprecation bordering on self-loathing, we now imagine a post-American world that is anything but. Just watch who scatters and who steps up as the Facebook revolutions erupt across the Arab world. While we might imagine ourselves the status quo power, we remain the world's most vigorously revisionist force. As for the sheer "evil" that is our military-industrial complex, again, let's examine what the world looked like before that establishment reared its ugly head. The last great period of global structural change was the first half of the 20th century, a period that saw a death toll of about 100 million across two world wars. That comes to an average of 2 million deaths a year in a world of approximately 2 billion souls. Today, with far more comprehensive worldwide reporting, researchers report an average of less than 100,000 battle deaths annually in a world fast approaching 7 billion people. Though admittedly crude, these calculations suggest a 90 percent absolute drop and a 99 percent relative drop in deaths due to war. We are clearly headed for a world order characterized by multipolarity, something the American-birthed system was designed to both encourage and accommodate. But given how things turned out the last time we collectively faced such a fluid structure,

we would do well to keep U.S. power, in all of its forms, deeply embedded in the geometry to come. To continue
the historical survey, after salvaging Western Europe from its half-century of civil war, the U.S. emerged as the progenitor of a new, far more just form of globalization -- one based on actual free trade rather than colonialism. America then successfully replicated globalization further in East Asia over the second half of the 20th century, setting the stage for the Pacific Century now unfolding.

1AC K

Plan
Guantanamo Bay is still open no closure coming
Herb, 12 (Jeremy, staff writer for the The Hill covering defense and national security, Obama faces
long odds to close Guantnamo Bay if he tries again, 10/21/12 03:00 PM ET, Online, http://thehill.com/blogs/defcon-hill/policy-and-strategy/263125-obama-faces-long-odds-to-close-gitmo-ifhe-tries-again-, accessed 7/27/13) PE Congressional Republicans are skeptical the president was serious about a renewed attempt to close Gitmo. Rather, they suggest he was playing to his liberal supporters in the runup to the election. Its something hes saying to appeal to his base, Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.) told The Hill in an interview. Ayotte, who has been one of the most outspoken Republicans on detention issues, said there was little support in either Congress or public opinion to close the facility and bring terrorists onto U.S. soil. Theres no way that [the administrations efforts to close Guantnamo] are going to be greater than his first term, she said. I dont see this as something hes suddenly going to be able to turn around. Obamas pledge to shutter the Guantnamo Bay military prison was one of his biggest campaign promises in 2008, and he signed

an executive order his first week in office to close the military facility on Cuban soil. Stewarts question, in fact, used the same phrase that Obama did at the executive order signing ceremony. But in the face of fierce opposition in Congress from Republicans, Obama backed away from his attempts to close the facility and move the terrorism trials from military commissions into federal courts. Pre-trial hearings for Khalid Sheikh Mohammed,
the self-proclaimed 9/11 mastermind who the Obama administration wanted to try in downtown Manhattan, resumed this week at Guantnamo Bay. House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon (RCalif.) said that bipartisan opposition prevented the administration from closing the prison when Democrats held majorities in both chambers of Congress. If he wants to try again, that is his choice, McKeon, who has helped lead GOP efforts to block transfers of Gitmo detainees in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), said in a statement to The Hill. I'd suggest that he precede the request with developing a comprehensible and consistent policy for detaining and interrogating terrorists, McKeon added. No one has ever argued that Guantanamo Bay is ideal, but before you talk about closing it you have to tell the country what you will replace it with. An Obama campaign official said that closing Guantnamo remains a priority for the president, and that he is committed to closing it in a second term. The official noted that even while Gitmo remains open, the Obama administration has reduced the detainee population. Mitt Romney supports keeping the prison open and increasing its size, the official said. Democratic aides in Congress acknowledge it would be difficult to gain enough support to close the military prison while Republicans retain control of the House. But they say that some traction has been made on the issue in the past year.

The United States federal government should provide technical cooperation over the transfer of United States owned physical assets in the Republic of Cuba.

Biopower/Terror 1AC
Guantanamo Bay is the site of convergence of the United States exercise of biopower in the War on Terror exposure is key to challenge these practices
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) There is, for Foucault, a clear movement in history and philosophy awayfrom concerns over the best regime and the proper ordering of the soul to thevarious and unrestricted elements that constitute the soul. For GiorgioAgamben, similarly, but with significant differences in emphasis, the meaningsof sovereignty and of subjectivity have been irredeemably altered; Agambenargues that the concentration camp

has replaced the city as the paradigmatic object of inquiry into sovereignty, subjectivity, and citizenship (Ek, 2006). Thisalteration has as its most significant trope the
Muselmann.In the third part of our essay, we discuss not a factor in thereconstitution of the detainee but the outcome of the two factors mentionedabove. The idea of the detainee as a Muselmann

contains within it importantimplications for the new understanding of sovereignty in the era of Guantnamo, in an age of exception. In Arabic, one who submits
to the will of God is a Muslim. However, in the argot of Auschwitz (but not in all theconcentration camps of the Third Reich), the Muselmann is the one who wasgiven up by his comrades a staggering corpse, a bundle of physicalfunctions, in its last convulsions (Amery, 1980, 9). In Auschwitz, theMuselmann became a classification of a certain kind of person unworthy of life,a product of Nazisms peculiar ordering of rank among human beings inconfinement.Yet rather than categorizing the Muselmann as an outlier who is broughtwithin the juridico-political order (Agamben, 1998, 18), Agamben sees theMuselmann as the being that constitutes the political order in modern times because that order no longer lives by the distinction between inside and outside, between the political animal and the slave. Such distinctions have crumbled inthe presence of the Nazi concentration camps. Thus, the state of exceptionwhich brought forth the Muselmann is neither a legal phenomenon nor a political one, strictly understood. It is, rather, the space which validates the juridico-political order (Agamben, 1998, 19). Sovereignty, Agamben writes, isreconstituted here, on the threshold of the new order of the ages, and whosesymbol is the concentration camp. The camp and its effects have overturned allmoral qualities, all distinctions between human and animal, particularly withthe advent of the Muselmann, whose presence we are only beginning towitness, but whose affect on power we cannot avoid. It can even be said

that the production of a biopolitical body is the original activity of sovereign power (Agamben, 1998, 6; italics in original). For Agamben, the Muselmann reframes sovereignty at the point of convergence within the liminal spaces of

sovereignty, Guantnamo, and biopower. Fourth, then, we turn to the final factor in the altered status of thedetainee, bioconvergence. The Bush Administrations legal tactics regarding detainees took place, in part, under cover of the medias failure to report the
full story of the wars effects, both in battle and at Guantnamo , which allowed theBush Administration to implement policies that both ignored legal norms andstretched the meaning of legal norms (Kurtz, 2004, A1; John, Domke, et al.,2007). And yet, two years after the war began, the medias newfound focus onthe arrests and the conditions of imprisonment of those deemed enemycombatants provided the public with insight into the Bush Administrationsthinking regarding friends and enemies. Through published pictures in major newsweeklies , the shrouded detainees of Guantnamo have become (andcontinue to be) the site of convergence for the effects of biopower on those deemed

of national and international legal protections. Thus, at the intersection of sovereignty, the war on terror, and the media lies a convergence of ideas and practices that fundamentally alter the meaning of being a detainee.
unworthy

Treatment of detainees at Guantanamo justifies endless torture and suffering

Volha Piotukh, Edinburgh, 6 June 2008, PhD student, School of Politics and International Studies, (POLIS) The University of Leeds, Supervisors: Dr. Deiniol Jones and Prof. Alice Hills, Humanitarian Action and the War on Terror: Some Preliminary Thoughts on a New Biopolitical Nexus www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/.../Piotukh Paper.doc DS) I would suggest that theorising on biopower and biopolitics can provide useful insights not only at the macro, but also at the micro level, as particular practices can also be read

biopolitically, including what euphemistically was termed detention and interrogation techniques in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. I believe that what matters
most for such a reading is not the torture as such, or the persistent denial of such facts by the U.S. Administration, or the hypocrisy of its rhetoric stressing the full respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, or even the double-standards inherent in accusing other countries of resorting to torture and similar practices, but the fact that torture has become legitimised and even subject to regulation. Referring to Foucaults concept of biopower as a power that fosters life or disallows it to the point of death, Wadiwel suggests that it can () capture and subject life, for an indefinite duration, to a measured violence () In this violence a frictional

violence the sovereign reveals a commitment to life, a life whose time is measured by pain (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124). Torture, therefore, can be considered as an ugly form of life preservation. A torturer has to maintain life, to not let death prevent the
continued infliction of pain, which can become life long (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 117). Thus, the Nazi Protective Custody directive of October 26, 1939 contained the following condition: (..) the duration of detention in a concentration camp must always be indicated as indefinite (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 124).

The detainees of detention camps scattered all over the world, share the same fate, as they have been promised release only upon cessation of GWOT, which, as we know, is a war with imprecise objectives, and no definite end. This
indefinite detention itself becomes a form of torture. Agambens theorising can also provide useful

insights. For example, the tortured were those categorised as unlawful or enemy combatants terms unknown in international law. These definitions allowed the U.S. Administration to deprive these people of the protection provided by either IHL or human rights law. Moreover, they could not appeal to the U.S. national courts as, given the location of the camps, the courts would not have jurisdiction to consider appeals of foreigners captured and held abroad. Thus, these people were turned into Homo

Sacer, stripped of anything that could stand between them and the torturer as a personification of bio-power, caught in the state of exception where law does not apply in any other way than by no longer applying. Anything becomes possible, including the decisions that practices that only amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading can be tolerated, anything up to the point when tortured are finally left with nothing but their own living being, felt only through an endless suffering (Wadiwel, 2003 p. 120).

Continued policy support for Guantanamo uniquely perpetuates a state of exception which renders infinite war inevitable turns their impacts
(Fleur Johns 2005, Lecturer, University of Sydney Faculty of Law, Sydney, Australia. Guantanamo Bay and the annihilation of the exception, http://www.ejil.org/pdfs/16/4/311.pdf, DS) Giorgio Agamben has argued that the Military Order of November 2001 (by which the indefinite detention and trial of alleged enemy combatants at Guantnamo Bay was authorized) produced a legally unnamable and unclassifiable being in the person of the detainee.52 This rendered each detainee the object of a pure de facto rule subject to a detention . . . entirely removed from the law.53 According to Agamben, this embodies a juridical phenomenon the state of exception that arose historically from the merging of two precepts: the extension of military power into the civil sphere (under the rubric of a state of siege) and the suspension of con- stitutional norms protecting individual liberties by governmental decree.54 This merger, Agamben characterizes as bringing into

being a kenomatic space, an emp- tiness of law55 in which the sovereign affirms its authoritative locus within the legal order by acting to suspend the law altogether.56 As such, it is expressive of a dominant paradigm of government in contemporary politics.57 [US President George W.] Bush, Agamben claims, is attempting to produce a situation in which the emergency becomes the rule, and the very distinction between peace and war . . . becomes impossible.58 Unlike the commentators cited in the preceding section, Agamben is at pains to point
out that this state of exception is neither removed from the legal order, nor cre- ates a special kind of law. Rather, it defines laws threshold or limit concept.59 Agamben maintains that the state of exception is juridical in form and effect a vital scene for the development and deployment of governmental techniques of rule. Within the juridical order, the state of exception is said to embody an emptiness of law, a space devoid of law, a zone of anomie in which all legal determinations . . . are deactivated.60 More precisely, the state of exception is neither external nor internal to the juridical order; it is rather a zone of indifference, where inside and outside do not exclude each other but rather blur with each other.61 In Agambens account, law employs the exception . . . as its original means of referring to and encompassing lifeso as to bind[ ] and, at the same time, abandon[ ] the living being to law.62 Law

binds itself to bare life zo or biological life as such in the space of the exception, whereby every outside, every limit of life and every possibility of transgression comes to be included within the purview of a new juridico-political paradigm.63 Of the November 2001 Military Order, Agamben observes that it radically erases any legal status of the individual by reason of the detainees held thereunder enjoying neither the status of POWs as defined by the Geneva Conventions nor the status of persons charged with a crime according to American laws.64 Accordingly, Agamben declares the operations at Guantnamo Bay de facto proceedings, which are in them- selves extra- or antijuridical but which have nonetheless pass[ed] over into law such that juridical norms blur with mere fact.65 Agamben thus endorses, albeit in his own distinct terms, the claim that much of the legal scholarship surrounding Guantnamo Bay makes that this jurisdiction rep- resents a special, original case within the juridical order: a zone of indistinction in which fact and law coincide .66 In so doing, Agamben implies the existence, or pre- existence, of a juridical zone a space of nonexceptional character in which fact and law do not coalesce; a secondary sphere in which maintaining the very distinc- tion between peace and war is or was possible. Agambens discussion of the nourish[ment]67 that the exception affords law suggests some other domain where, but for the exception, law might hold back (or be held back) from its voracious coloniza- tion of the preconditions of life and of politics (the normal situation).68

Our impacts come before their DAs challenging the discursive framework of the war on terror counters the very foundations of the war
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) First, the war on terror. Apart from the reality of war on the battlefield, the war on

The war on terror has revivified an interest in the theological and political differences betweenChristianity and Islam. It has created a discourse of dangerousness based on thereligion of those who
terror also exists within a discursive framework. hijacked the planes that crashed into the World TradeCenter on September 11, 2001, as well as the religion of those captured in Iraqand Afghanistan (Sengupta and Masood, 2005). Casting the war

on terror intheological and political terms, Alberto Gonzales, President George W. BushsAttorney General, told some journalists that al Qaeda is different from all other enemies America has faced because it does not cherish life (Hersh, 2004, 5).Indeed, President Bush went further than his Attorney General bycharacterizing the war against al Qaeda as only part of the larger global war onterror. For President Bush, the global war on terror is one that may never end, because the enemy is stateless, relentless, and potentially

everywhere.Consequently, President Bush, in an important address to the American peoplefollowing

the events of September 11, saw fit to flesh out the implications of fighting an enemy that does not cherish life by warning the American peoplethat they should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike anyother we have ever seen, because the global war on terror will not be limited by the requirements of the laws of war. Effectively, a state of emergency hadcreated a state of

exception, where the norms of lawful behavior recede in favor of the more pressing concerns over security and the meaning of life itself:It may include dramatic strikes, visible on TV, and covertoperations, secret even in success. We will starve
terrorists of funding, turn them one against another, drive them from place to place, until there is no refuge or no rest. And we will pursuenations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation,in every region, now has a decision to make. Either you are withus, or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, anynation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will beregarded by the United States as a hostile regime. (Bush, 2001)In the second part of this article, we

discuss the reconfigured meaning of sovereignty as a factor in the reconstitution of the Guantnamo detainee as anenemy combatant who can be denied the privileges of prisoners of war. Thetraditional goal of sovereignty is to establish
the essential unity of power onthree elements: subject, unitary power, and law (Foucault, 2003, 44). For Michel Foucault, however, the juridical existence of sovereignty no longer categorizes subjectivity. For a long time, Foucault writes, one of the characteristic privileges of sovereign power was the right to decide life and death (1990b, 135). Now, wars are waged on behalf of the existence of everyone (1990b, 137). He called this insight biopower.Biopower deals with the social body and its effects in producing norms.Foucault recognized that life gained new meaning in the classical age and againduring the advent of capitalism. The concern over life (its ordering,maintenance, and subsistence), for Foucault, is a modern invention, and biopower represents a positive force in the sense that it produces new meaningto life. It assembles the forces of power and the effects of knowledge operatingon subjects. The alteration in the view of sovereignty, then, from aninstitutional structure (premised on natural balances) to that which obligesobedience (Foucault, 2008, 303) means that, today, it is less important to focuson sovereignty as a political and

institutional structure than as one elementamong many that structures subjectivity

Continuation of torture renders every individual vulnerable to state violence and is the root cause of their impacts
Slavoj Zizek 2005, Slavoj Zizek is a senior researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the Institute of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, BIOPOLITICS: BETWEEN ABU GHRAIB AND TERRI SCHIAVO. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/biopolitics-between-abu-ghraib-and-terrischiavo/ DS) The fate of Terri Schiavo and the fate of the tortured prisoners are the two extremes of America's regard for human rights: on the one hand "those missed by the bombs" (mentally and physically complete human beings who must be deprived of all rights), on the other hand a human being reduced to bare vegetative life (the living dead whose "life" must be protected by the entire state apparatus). What these two opposites share is a reduction to bare life. In the Schiavo case, this reduction is a biological reality, which is why her life deserves protection; in the case of tortured

prisoners, this reduction is imposed by the state apparatus, which is why their lives are deemed unworthy of protection. Terri Schiavo not only deserved to enjoy every
human right but must have them forced on her, though she was unable in any event to make use of them as a person; the tortured prisoners are able to use--and presumably desperate to be granted--any human right but must be deprived of all. The legitimization of torture and the excessive care

for a human life reduced to vegetative state are thus two manifestations of the same grotesque logic. There is, however, a further phantasmic element that sustains the tolerance for torture--that of being exposed to a potential or invisible threat: It is the invisible (and for that very reason all-powerful and omnipresent) threat of the Enemy that legitimizes the permanent state of emergency of the Established Power. (Fascists
invoked the threat of the Jewish conspiracy, Stalinists the threat of the class enemy, and today, of course, we have the "war on terror.") This invisible threat of the Enemy legitimizes the logic

of the preemptive strike. Precisely because the threat is virtual, one can't wait for its actualization, the omnipresent invisible threat of "terror" legitimizes the all too visible protective measures of defense (which, of course, pose the only true
threat to democracy and human rights). If the classic exercise of power lay in the threat made operative precisely by way of never actualizing itself, by way of remaining a threatening gesture (a stratagem that reached its climax in the cold war, wherein the threat of the mutual nuclear destruction had to remain a threat), with the war on terror, the invisible threat causes the incessant actualization not of itself but of the measures against itself. The nuclear strike had to remain the threat of a strike,

while the threat of the terrorist strike triggers an endless series of strikes against alleged and even merely potential terrorists. The power that presents itself as
being always under threat, living in mortal danger, and thus merely defending itself is the most dangerous kind of power, the very model of Nietzschean ressentiment and moralistic hypocrisy--and was it not Nietzsche himself who, more than a century ago, provided avant la lettre the best analysis of the false moral premises of today's "war on terror"? No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather the army is supposed to serve for

defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our
neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is

itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests."

Each time we deem torture permissible that justifies its spread we have to reject torture in every instance
Slavoj Zizek 2005, Slavoj Zizek is a senior researcher in the Department of Philosophy at the Institute of Sociology, University of Ljubljana, BIOPOLITICS: BETWEEN ABU GHRAIB AND TERRI SCHIAVO. http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/biopolitics-between-abu-ghraib-and-terrischiavo/ DS) But in reality, of course, the two procedures coexist. The US government agencies running

the "war on terror" have become increasingly reliant on an extralegal practice known as "extraordinary rendition"--a euphemism for a policy of seizing suspicious individuals at home or abroad without even the semblance of due process and sending them off to be interrogated by allied regimes known to practice torture. Not all of the "enhanced" interrogations are farmed out to foreign
intelligence services, however: Witness the CIA's "black sites," located abroad but covertly operated by the US government. Presumably, "high-value" detainees are whisked away to these undisclosed locations when no foreign proxy can be entrusted to do the job right. So what about the "realistic" counterargument to this policy of clandestine torture? The war on terror is dirty, the realists begin by admitting. At times the lives of thousands depend on information we may be able to extract from our prisoners. So what do you think the government is going to do? And if we're going to do it--with great reluctance, of course--then shouldn't we have checks on the way we do it, to prevent excesses? As Alan Dershowitz put it, "I'm not in favor of torture, but if you're going to have it, it should damn well have court approval." This logic is, of course, extremely dangerous: It legitimizes torture and thus opens up the space for more illicit torture. So we must reject the liberal "honesty" of a Dershowitz, but are we now

stuck supporting a paradoxical and hypocritical policy of publicly condemning torture while privately practicing it? In a singular situation, confronted with
the proverbial "prisoner who knows" and whose words might save thousands, one would unquestionably turn to torture as a last resort; however, it is absolutely crucial that one not elevate this desperate choice into a universal principle. Rather, in the unavoidable, brutal urgency of the moment, one should simply do it. Only by rejecting in principle the notion that torture is permissible even in dire circumstances (while knowing that we resorted to it in precisely such circumstances) can we retain the requisite sense of guilt and awareness of the inadmissibility of what we did.

Imperialism 1AC
Closing Guantanamo is the first step toward a legal reformulation of US policy on torture
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law, He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the 17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 163 GUANTNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57Wayne-L-Rev-163-Guantanamo-Understanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-ofAmerican-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray Classical physics defines a black hole as the entity that has an enormous gravitational pull by means of which it attracts anything and everything that comes within its territory. Thus, a black hole can be seen as a giant vacuum which will attract and inhale everything without ever disclosing the identity of the material it has devoured. I want to bring this physical manifestation of Guantnamo and place it within a legal context. Like an astronomical black hole devours all other celestial bodies

surrounding it, I see the phenomenological construct of Guantnamo attempting to devour any and all other legal events that share the same ontological space with itthat is, any alleged instances of terrorism involving American interests. This is where the correct representation of Guantnamo as a narrative of legal
black hole must be understood. Attention must be given to the sweepingly overpowering phenomenon that has existed for more than a decade now, and with no end of attenuation in sight. Unless this

specter of sending an individual into Guantnamo goes away, it is very difficult to take the next step in Americas detainee jurisprudence. Therefore, it is of utmost importance that Guantnamo be decoupled from the legal discourse within American jurisprudence. This decoupling, however, is not possible without the proper closure of Guantnamonot only a legally difficult
proposition but an event that has existential ramifications for the American domestic political agenda. Like the way a black hole distorts the traversal path of celestial objects near its sphere of influence, I see Guantnamo distorting not only the constitutional curvature, but also the possible trajectory of any legal event. In order for a legal event to proceed to its logical conclusion, it must traverse forward, sometimes in a linear fashion, oftentimes, however, embracing non-linearity. But, if the trajectory can never decouple itself from a larger gravitational pull, it will never reach its logical legal conclusion. This is where the closure of Guantnamo has the most significant socio-legal phenomena, the immediacy of which must be both internalized and achieved. I would submit that consistent detainee jurisprudence is not possible without adequate closure of Guantnamothe anatomy of which I dissect below.

Returning Guantanamo is a prerequisite to challenging American imperialism in Latin America

Phineas Rueckert, June 4, 2013 Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs Guantnamo Bay: Closing the GTMO Detention Center is a Wilting Olive Branch to Cuba and the Rest of Latin America http://www.coha.org/guantanamo-bay-closing-the-gtmo-detention-center-is-a-wiltingolive-branch-to-cuba-and-the-rest-of-latin-america/,TS)

The continued operation of the GTMO detention center is a shameful indictment of a backward and often hypocritical foreign policy, in which the United States legitimizes leaving Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List and simultaneously operates a morally objectionable detention center with a long history of human rights violations. While closing down the detention center and transferring detainees would be a step in the right direction for the
Obama administration in terms of improving its poor human rights record, there is a larger issue at hand that has been ignored by both the administration and

Guantnamo Bay houses a naval base that represents the imperialist past of the United States in Cuba and the rest of Latin America; this base will remain operational even if Obama succeeds at closing the detention center. Ultimately, if Obama truly wanted to improve relations with Latin America, through a change of policy on Guantnamo, he would not only close the GTMO detention center, but also return the entire naval base to Cuba.
mainstream media outlets. In addition to being a detention center,

Guantanamo bay justifies US exceptionalism and imperialism which naturalizes and reproduces endless violence and racism Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf The meeting of exceptionalism, liberalism and the colossal US military machine is explosive. Because the idea of exceptionalism (reied as it is, not being criticized) expresses some sort of superiority that not only gives the US the right of lecturing other people on how to organize their societies, but also establishes a sort of hierarchy of life value, at the top of which rest American lives. If we add to this the disproportionate military apparatus and a liberal discourse arming US action is carried out in the name of Humanity and not because of self-interest, the real possibility to carry out extermination policies towards those who do not agree with the way of life that is being imposed on them emerges. This is one way to understand a fundamental US paradox: While it has had the leading role in constructing the most complex international legal order to maintain peace, it has, at the same time, constructed a colossal military machine -without a peer competitor- that cannot be understood solely in terms of defense (of Humanity). What we are trying to emphasize is the intrinsic linkage between US democracy and violence and the danger that accompanies it when used in the name of universality, because it can lead to an exterminating violence. As Benjamin once said, this violence is not just a conservative one, but can act as a founder one (1995). And this is important too: No democracy works without violence and -we do not have to forget- violence is in the origins of US democracy. Indeed, it was built on the genocide of natives and slavery. Furthermore, must consider this an open chapter in history: in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq (just for citing some examples) US is currentlyexercising founder violence. Whether the exceptionalism is understood as an example or as a

right and a duty to impose particular values on other people, both meanings shed light on the sense of superiority that permeates US identity. We can arm thus that American exceptionalism is no more than a form of racism. This assertion deserves further development.

American exceptionalism justifies extermination of the other Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf In this context, talking about the Bush administration appears to be almost an obligation. Indeed, after raising the WMD and the Saddam Hussein-Al Qaida liaisons questions, the discourse of the previous US administration turned to democracy. The diagnosis was that terrorism was an e ect of freedom/democracy decit in the Middle East region; hence, the treatment implied its imposition. As we have held before, the Bush administration tried to amalgamate interests and values. Freedom and security: the two principal features of the biopolitical power strongly emerged. Indeed, after 9-11, the most important interest of US appeared to be a vital one: assuring the nation. The main value, what (it was said) distinguished US from the rest of the world, was freedom, homologated with its democratic system. Thus, security adopted notjust a conservative character, linked with survival, but a multiplier one: it was not just about protection but about improvement as well. As said, liberal democracy is expected to be fully inclusive, forgetting that it is based (as we have seen) on exclusion. Furthermore, the dialectic inclusion/exclusion still works here, with the augmented risk that exclusion takes the form of an exterminating one. That is, if liberal hegemony aspires to a universal inclusion,it takes the risk of: 1. including the other in a hierarchical way, through the negation of his otherness (thus, turning it in someone similar, erasing its di erences); 2. exterminating those who do not accept being included. And it is here where cultural racism works, because it is the mechanism which permits the US or -now that the North American power aspires to play a low prole role in the interventionist moves- the liberal powers in general, to kill in the name of certain universalities: freedom and Humanity. The US policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan and (with some di erences) last intervention in Libya, where many people have been killed on behalf of their own well-being, are a few examples of what we are trying to explain.

Guantanamo is the root of modern militarism its the base of media racism in the context of the War on Drugs and War on Terror
Braziel 6 (Jana Evans, Assistant professor of English and comparative literature at the University of
Cincinnati, Haiti, Guantnamo, and the "One Indispensable Nation" U.S. Imperialism, "Apparent States," and Postcolonial Problematics of Sovereignty, Cultural Critique 64, http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/cultural_critique/v064/64.1braziel.html//TS)
Although most U.S. wars have remained remote to the shores of the continental United States in Europe, North Africa, Asia, or within the Caribbean and closer to

the U.S. naval base at Guantnamo Bay has been the militarized center for other rhetorically determined yet still materially destructive "wars": notably, the "War on Drugs" and the "War on Terror"; but I would also add the "War against Refugees." [End Page 138] These administrative and militarized attacksagainst drugs, "enemy combatants," and refugeeshave distinctly transnational and overtly racialized dimensions. Above, I focused primarily on the military offenses against
home

refugees and "enemy combatants," although both are partially and rhetorically entangled with the military base's involvement in the "War on Drugs"ever popular
with both the legislative branches of the U.S. government and the U.S. public and thus capable of rallying unwavering, nearly unquestioned political support and

Haitian refugees who were detained at the Guantnamo Bay naval base during the early to mid-1990s were routinely and rhetorically aligned with illegal drug traffickers: all boats containing Haitian passengers intercepted at sea were immediately suspected of two unforgivable crimes: illegal narcotics transshipment and illegal refugee transportationin effect, a double condemnation for simply being Haitian. Similarly, as Afghan men were detained as "enemy combatants" at the Guantnamo naval base in 2002, the Bush administration stepped up its U.S. media campaign in the ever-ready blitz of the "War on Drugs," warning American consumers of "black market" illegal substances that dealing, buying, and using heroin was tantamount to "supporting terrorism" (since, it was reasoned, opium dollars could be, almost ineluctably would be, diverted to terrorist organizations), and the media campaign even went so far as to reductively conflate chemical substances and geopolitical territories, eliding their differences and implying that marijuana, like heroin, could be connected to potential terrorist acts against the United States. Threats of terrorist acts, of course, incited fear in the U.S. American public and sustained steadfast, though not unchallenged, support for military interventions as part of the "War on Terror." (The antiwar movement, though vibrant
exorbitant funding. For example, and widespread throughout the United States and globally, leading up to the U.S. War against Iraq initiated in March 2003 in an air missile bombing campaignwas largely ignored by the U.S. media and the administration.)Haitian diasporic artists, musicians, and writers, not surprisingly, offer strikingly different portrayals of Guantnamo than those given within official "histories" of the U.S. naval base.32 In "Something in the Water . . . Reflection of a People's Journey," Nikl Payen, echoing Mart's language more than a century after the poet and martyr scrawled his entry from Guantnamo into his Diarios de campaa, [End Page 139] textually paints a "hostile" portrait of Guantnamo: while working as a Kreyl translator on the U.S. naval base in order both to obtain information from the Haitian refugees

Guantnamo, which was deliberately and militaristically pocked with "acres of land mines strategically plotted throughout the burned grass partitioned by steel fences with barbed-wire topping, a deterrent for Cubans who were curious about democracy, not the ones who crossed the border every morning to work for the U.S. government, [and which] left me in awe of the island's intricate readiness for war" (73). Even the sounds of Guantnamo suggest its militarization in Payen's sensate and imaginary narrative remapping of the base's landscape: she does not recall the lull of waves breaking against sand, or the call of birds, but rather, she remembers, "the chopping of helicopters was a familiar noise, as was the arbitrary explosion of cannons" (73). In Payen's memory and narrative, it is the "militarization" of the bay that is the most striking element of Guantnamo, a place where "twenty-fourhour guard towers reassured both sides protection of their respective countries. Sun up to sundown, soldiers stood guard at the borders with the guns permanently aimed in the direction of the enemy" (73).
and to articulate their needs to the U.S. military, Payen recalls the stark landscape of

Returning Gitmo starts the retractions of US imperialism in Latin America

Williams 2007 (Carol J. Williams Los Angeles Times international affairs writer. Former foreign
correspondent, 25 years covering Europe, Latin America, Asia and the Middle East. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2007-04-18/news/0704180417_1_cuba-guantanamo-bay-latin-america Accessed 7/19/13//TS)
GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA -- President Fidel Castro wages a silent protest against the U.S. "tenants" of this bay in southern Cuba from a drawer in his desk. There lie 47 uncashed checks drawn on the U.S. Treasury, each for $4,085, the annual rent fixed in a 1903 lease agreement that has vexed Cuba's leader since a leftist

The presence of U.S. troops on Cuban soil has long rankled Castro, who has often ranted about the "imperialist occupation." Julia Sweig, director of Latin American studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, noted the international outcry over the Pentagon's use of the base at Guantanamo to detain and prosecute prisoners in the war on terror. "One way to unload the problem would be to give it back to Cuba," she said. "The question is, would the Cubans want it back? Because it's become such a global symbol of what has gone wrong with America - not just a symbol of our colonial impulses but of the anti-imperialist fight throughout Latin America - it's something Cuba uses to greater benefit than getting the base back." In a report last month on Guantanamo's role in the troubled relationship between Havana and Washington, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs think tank concluded that returning the territory is essential to ending the perceived U.S. domination of Latin American neighbors.
revolution brought him to power nearly a half-century ago.

Imperialism causes serial policy failure

Harvey, 2003 (David Harvey is the Professor of Anthropology and Geography at the Graduate
Center of the City University of New York. Clarendon Lectures in Geography and Environmental Studies : New Imperialism. London, GBR: Oxford University Press, 2003. p 193-194 http://site.ebrary.com/lib/michstate/Doc?id=10545870&ppg=207, TS)
Iraq had long been a central concern for the neoconservatives, but the difficulty was that public support for military intervention was unlikely to materialize without some catastrophic event on the scale of Pearl Harbor, as they put it. 9/11 provided the golden opportunity, and a moment of

social solidarity and patriotism was seized upon to construct an American nationalism that could provide the basis for a different form of imperialist endeavour and internal control. Most liberals, even those who had formerly been critical of US imperialist practices, backed the administration in launching its war against terror and were prepared to sacrifice something of civil liberties in the cause of national security. The accusation of being unpatriotic was used to
suppress critical engagement or meaningful dissent. The media and the political parties fell into line . This enabled the political leadership to enact repressive legislation with scarcely any opposition most notably the Patriot and Homeland Security Acts. Draconian curbs on civil rights were instituted.

Prisoners were held illegally and without representation in Guantanamo Bay, indiscriminate round-ups of suspects occurred, and many were held for months without access to legal advice, let alone a trial. Police could arbitrarily detain anyone suspected of terrorism, which could include, it soon became clear, even those in the anti-globalization movement. Draconian surveillance techniques were
introduced (the FBI was to have access to records of book-borrowing from libraries, book purchases, internet connections, records of student enrolment, membership of scuba-diving clubs, etc.). The administration also seized the opportunity to cut all kinds of programmes for the poor (in the name of sacrifice for a national cause). It imposed a tax-cut programme that grossly favoured the wealthiest 1 per cent of the population (in the name of stimulating the economy) and even proposed the elimination of taxes on dividends in the vain hope that this

might bolster asset values on Wall Street. But such policies, coupled with flagrant violations of the Bill of Rights and of American constitutionality, could only be sustained, as Washington, Madison, and many others had long ago recognized and feared, through foreign entanglements of an imperialist sort.
Given the threats implied in the events of 9/11, and the climate of suppression of dissent, even liberal opinion swung behind the idea of the invasion of Afghanistan, the routing of the Taliban, and the global hunt for al Qaeda.

Attempts to maintain American superiority and security are symptomatic of paranoia manifesting itself throughout politics the inevitable result of which is flashpoint imperial violence
McClintock 09
(Anne McClintock is a writer, feminist scholar and public intellectual who has published widely on issues of sexuality, race, imperialism, and nationalism; popular and visual culture, photography, advertising and cultural theory Paranoid Empire: Specters from Guantnamo and Abu Ghraib March 2009, p. 53 Accessed via Project MUSE, TS)

Why paranoia? Can we fully understand the proliferating circuits of imperial violencethe very eclipsing of which gives to our moment its uncanny, phantasmagoric castwithout understanding the pervasive presence of the paranoia that has come, quite violently, to manifest itself across the political and cultural spectrum as a defining feature of our time? By paranoia, I mean not simply Hofstadters famous identification of the US states tendency toward conspiracy theories.7 Rather, I conceive of paranoia as an inherent contradiction with respect to power: a double-sided phantasm that oscillates precariously between deliriums of grandeur and nightmares of perpetual threat, a deep and dangerous doubleness with respect to power that is held in unstable tension, but which, if suddenly destabilized (as after 9/11), can produce pyrotechnic displays of violence. The
pertinence of understanding paranoia, I argue, lies in its peculiarly intimate and peculiarly dangerous relation to violence.8 Let me be clear: I do not see paranoia as a primary, structural cause of US imperialism nor as its structuring identity. Nor do I see the US war on terror as animated by some collective, psychic agency, submerged mind, or Hegelian cunning of reason, nor by what Susan Faludi calls a national terror dream.9 Nor am I interested in evoking paranoia as a kind of

social entity such as an organization, state, or empire can be spoken of as paranoid if the
psychological diagnosis of the imperial nation-state. Nations do not have psyches or an unconscious; only people do. Rather, a

dominant powers governing that entity cohere as a collective community around contradictory cultural narratives, self-mythologies, practices, and identities that oscillate between delusions of inherent superiority and omnipotence, and phantasms of threat and engulfment. The term paranoia is analytically useful here, then, not as a description of a collective national psyche, nor as a description of a universal pathology, but rather as an analytically strategic concept, a way of seeing and being attentive to contradictions within power, a way of making visible (the better politically to oppose) the contradictory flashpoints of violence that the state tries to conceal.

Imperialist domination leads to lost of value to life that outweighs

Perez 8
(Pepito Perez published Semptember 2008 A short essay on the overall negative consequences of 19th century European imperialism. http://www.scribd.com/doc/6289110/The-Consequences-of-Imperialism

Imperialist ambitions pushed for the economic exploitation of colonized nations to benefit the mother country. As imperial states began controlling the economy of the colonized territory, interests for the welfare of the colonized peoples had little influence in defining their economic policies. Instead, imperial states seek to maximize their profits and gains, regardless of the consequences such attitudes entailed for the colonized areas. Most notably, the long-term well being of the colonized nation was of no interest for the imperial state, and so any form of sustainable development seemed unnecessary for any imperial government. This is the reason why deforestation is a massive problem for many nations, which had formerly been controlled by some imperial power. 3 Imperial powers, in their quest for economic prosperity, disregarded the need for the sustainable management of forest areas and established minimally regulated lumber industries which seek only short-term profits for themselves and their mother country. 4 Thus, unsustainable overexploitation of natural resources followed. The effects are clearly in modern times, as the environmental degradation caused because of self-interested imperialist endeavors is difficult to reverse, and is undoubtedly connected with the rampant poverty and hunger present in many former colonies. 5 While some
industrial development did occur, imperial interests in colonized territories were aimed at creating an economy based on agriculture and the exploitation of other finite natural resources such as gold, silver, or diamonds. 6 Thus, the industrial development that did occur in colonized territories was relevant to the desire of imperial powers to turn colonized states into sources of cheap raw products to be later used in their industries back home. The economy of colonized territories was not diversified or turned into an industrial one, and instead a select number of goods were targeted, and their production/extraction hugely increased. 7 Imperial investment and construction focused on the development and construction of communications, railways, plantations and mines, 8 investments which did not by themselves help in the economic transformation of the country from agricultural to industrial. Rather, these investments were intended to accelerate the exploitation of the colonies natural resources and agricultural capacities. Once the nation attained political independence from the mother country, the legacy left behind from imperialism established an economy which depended on the export of a few select natural resources and agricultural, leaving the countrys economy extremely

imperial powers to reinvest the profits gained from their colonies in their industrial development 3 forcefully kept colonies under a fragile agricultural economy 9 while still depriving them of their finite natural resources. Thus, imperialism had a highly negative effect on the economic growth of colonized nations. The partitioning of colonies
vulnerable to market price fluctuations. Most importantly, the unwillingness of

worldwide into the spheres of influence of imperial powers created colonies that encompassed numerous ethnic, linguistic, and religious groups into a single political entity. This recurrent aspect of imperialism was most notable in Africa, where its partitioning did not correspond to the
historical, cultural, or ethnic boundaries of pre-colonial African societies. Thus, states were created which shared widely diverse ethnic populations, which felt no identity or connection to the political entity which they had been forcefully drawn into. 10 The political legacy left behind by imperialism left a cluster of artificially formed states which had no historic or cultural similarities on which to legitimatize its existence. 11 This situation, along with the economic difficulties suffered because of the previously discussed issues, led to an environment of political turmoil based on ethnic, religious, and linguistic. 12 Countries deeply divided among ethnic lines, a result of imperialism, not only led to the political instability of the former colonies, but also, in some cases, led to serious violence. Modern-day Kenya exemplifies this, as the competition of two different ethnic groups for the control of the government has led to a situation comparable to that of an early civil war. 13 It is thus clear that imperialism has resulted in a permanent liability in the geo-political situation of a great number of countries world wide. Regardless of the possible economic or technological benefits of imperialism, it is difficult to even begin to justify those ends by the tremendous loss of life that occurred because of it.

Unjust death of many natives at the hands of the military and technological superiority of imperial powers. However, the effects of imperialism go much farther beyond conquest: forceful slavery-like conditions in the colonized territories imposed great sufferings among the native population, and in many cases, unjust repression by the colonizing power led to the mass killings of a great number of people. In the Congo Free State, a Belgian colony, an estimated 10 million people died as a consequence of the imperialist policies of the time. 14
Additionally, retaliatory attacks on indigenous populations in many other instances resulted in the extermination of huge numbers of people. The unjust and unnecessary death of such a great number of people because of imperialism is, again, difficult to justify. However, one must also admit that imperialism allowed

western values through imperialism helped rid colonized territories of certain obsolete and morally condemnable practices and traditions. However, these benefits do not even begin to outweigh the negative impacts which imperialism brought. Imperialism was thus a largely negative aspect of the 19 th and 20 th centuries, as it achieved, through unjustifiable, repressive unjust means, an end which favored the few powerful imperial states and greatly hindered the great majority of colonized and subjugated territories
colonized territories to technologically advance thanks to the connection with other imperial powers. One canal so argue that the introduction of

Inherency

Wont Close Now

Despite legal issues and criticism from other countries the US is still not closing Guantanamo anytime soon Susan Seligson, masters in journalism at BUs College of Communication, 5-28-13, Guantanamo: the
Legal Mess Behind the Ethical Mess, BU Today, interviewed in this article is Susan M. Akram, a School of Law clinical professor of law and former executive director of Bostons Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/ How could the detention center be legal at all if Congress has blocked funding for any trials for those still imprisoned there? Theres no clear answer. The US Supreme Court, in four important decisions, Rasul v. Bush, Boumediene v. Bush, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, held that international law applies to Guantanamo detainees, that they cannot be held indefinitely without trial, that constitutional habeas corpus protections apply to them, and that the combatant status review tribunals were unconstitutional and violated the Geneva Conventions. Yet Congress and the executive branch have, through policy and legislation, strenuously avoided implementation of these decisions. The United States has also been chastised repeatedly by other states and the United Nations and its human rights organs that its interpretation of the laws of war concerning the detainees is wrong and against international consensus. Since 2002, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights of the Organization of American States has issued and reextended precautionary measures against the United States (the equivalent of domestic law injunctive orders), requesting that the United States take urgent measures necessary to have the legal status of the detainees determined by a competent tribunal. Guantanamo Bay Not Closing, No Support In House HuffingtonPost 2013 ( Guantanamo Bay To Stay Open As House Blocks Bill To Close Infamous Prison, 6/14/2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/14/guantanamo-bay-close_n_3438347.html) WASHINGTON -- A worsening hunger strike and a fresh plea by President Barack Obama to close the Guantanamo Bay prison fell on deaf ears in Congress Friday, as the House of Representatives voted to keep the increasingly infamous jail open. The House voted to make it harder for Obama to begin shifting inmates, adding a restriction to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2014 that bars any of the roughly 56 prisoners who have been cleared by military and intelligence officials to be sent to Yemen from being transferred there for one year. Some 30 other Gitmo inmates of the 166 kept there have also been cleared for release. "The Defense Department should not transfer detainees to Yemen because they represent some of the most dangerous terrorists known in the world," said Rep. Jackie Walorski (R-Ind.), who sponsored the fresh ban on shipping anyone out of Gitmo. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.), who offered a competing amendment to create a plan to close Gitmo, found the new restriction especially ironic, noting that federal authorities believe the Yemeni detainees are safe enough to be set free. "Not everybody that we rounded up and took to Guantanamo, unfortunately, turned out to be the very dangerous terrorists that we thought they were," Smith said, adding that continuing to hold them -- at a facility costing $1.6 million a year for each inmate -- was not sensible. "Determining that if there is any minimal threat whatsoever we're simply going to hold them forever is, well, quite frankly, un-American. That is contrary to our values to say we're going to hold somebody indefinitely -- I gather forever -- because we think there might possibly be some risk," Smith said. "That's not the way the Constitution is supposed to work."

Guantanamo Bay Not Closing, Bills Preventing Dinan, 2010(Stepthen, a Washington Times Political contributor, House acts to block closing of Gitmo, Washington Times, 12/8/10, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/dec/8/congress-deals-deathblow-gitmo-closure/?page=all) Congress on Wednesday signaled it wont close the prison at Guantanamo Bay or allow any of its suspected terrorist detainees to be transferred to the U.S., dealing what is likely the final blow to President Obamas campaign pledge to shutter the facility in Cuba. The move to block the prisons closure was written into a massive year-end spending bill that passed the House on Wednesday evening on a vote of 212-206, part of a last-minute legislative rush by Democrats to push through their priorities before ceding the House to Republican control in January. News of the Guantanamo provision brought a quick and sharp rebuke from the Obama administration Wednesday. Obama Unsuccessful at Closing Guantanamo Bay, All Attempts Failed Negrin, 2012 (Matt Negrin, Prior to joining POLITICO, Matt interned at the AP in Tokyo, The New York Times foreign desk, The Boston Globe, both in Boston and Washington, and The Hartford Courant. He was a Washington correspondent for the New Hampshire Union Leader during the spring of 2008 and a blogger at AOLs now defunct PoliticsDaily. Matt is a native of the Washington area and a cum laude graduate of Boston University, where he was the editor of the student-run independent newspaper there, Guantanamo Bay: Still Open, Despite Promises, ABC News, 7/3/12, http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/guantanamo-bay-openpromises/story?id=16698768#.UeXqH41OSPM) It might be President Obama's biggest broken promise: closing the prison at Guantanamo Bay. As a candidate, Obama vowed so many times that he would shutter the prison he called a recruitment tool for terrorists that he himself even noted how often he's promised to do so, in an interview with Steve Kroft shortly after he was elected. In that interview in November 2008, Kroft asked Obama if he planned to "take early action" to shut down Guantanamo. Obama replied, "Yes." "I have said repeatedly that I intend to close Guantanamo, and I will follow through on that," he said. After three and a half years as president, Obama has not done so. Shortly after being sworn in, Obama did sign an executive order that required that the Guantanamo prison be closed within a year. "The detention facilities at Guantnamo for individuals covered by this order shall be closed as soon as practicable, and no later than 1 year from the date of this order," read the statement he signed on Jan. 22, 2009. At the end of that year, in December, with Guantanamo still open and running, Obama accepted the Nobel Peace Prize. He said in his acceptance speech: "I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength." "That is why I prohibited torture," he added. "That is why I ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed." Five days later, Obama issued a memo that directed the defense secretary and the attorney general to prepare a prison in Illinois for the Guantanamo detainees. The deadline in Obama's executive order passed, and still he hadn't shut down the prison. In March 2011, two years after he signed the order, Obama signed another executive order. This one set up a review process for detainees. The document sought to "establish, as a discretionary matter, a process to review on a periodic basis the executive branch's continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in individual cases." The White House also released a related four-sentence statement in Obama's name. It didn't mention closing Guantanamo, or even use the word Guantanamo. Obama has run into plenty of opposition in Congress. Lawmakers passed a bill preventing federal money from being used to transfer Guantanamo prisoners to the United States. Obama signed that bill into law, even as he issued a statement that disapproved of it. The provision was part of a bigger military bill that Obama said was too important not to sign. Republicans, in particular, say that Guantanamo must stay open to keep terrorists there. The issue has largely subsided, a result of the stagnant economy wearing on the public and perhaps the repetitive nature of the storyline.

Closing Guantanamo Bay is not Obamas priority anymore Savage, 2013 (Charlie Savage, Charles Savage is a Washington correspondent for The New York Times. He is known for his work on presidential power and other legal policy matters. Before joining The Times, Mr. Savage covered national legal affairs for the Boston Globe from 2003 to 2008. He received a Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2007 for his coverage of presidential signing statements for the Globe. Other awards he earned while at the Globe include the American Bar Association's Silver Gavel Award and the Gerald R. Ford Prize for Distinguished Reporting on the Presidency. Mr. Savage's book about the growth of executive power, Takeover: The Return of the Imperial Presidency and the Subversion of American Democracy, was named one of the best books of 2007 by both Slate and Esquire. The book also received the bipartisan Constitution Project's inaugural Award for Constitutional Commentary, the NCTE George Orwell Award for Distinguished Contribution to Honesty and Clarity in Public Language and the New York Public Library's Helen Bernstein Book Award for Excellence in Journalism. He graduated summa cum laude with degrees in English and American literature from Harvard College in 1998. In 2003, he earned a master's degree from Yale Law School, where he was a Knight Journalism Fellow. Mr. Savage got his start as a local government and politics reporter for the Miami Herald, Office Working to Close Guantnamo Is Shuttered, New York Times, 1/28/13, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/29/us/politics/state-dept-closes-office-working-on-closingguantanamo-prison.html?_r=0) FORT MEADE, Md. The State Department on Monday reassigned Daniel Fried, the special envoy for closing the prison at Guantnamo Bay, Cuba, and will not replace him, according to an internal personnel announcement. Mr. Frieds office is being closed, and his former responsibilities will be assumed by the office of the departments legal adviser, the notice said. The announcement that no senior official in President Obamas second term will succeed Mr. Fried in working primarily on diplomatic issues pertaining to repatriating or resettling detainees appeared to signal that the administration does not currently see the closing of the prison as a realistic priority, despite repeated statements that it still intends to do so. Mr. Fried will become the departments coordinator for sanctions policy and will work on issues including Iran and Syria. Expert says Guantanamo will never close Todays News Headlines, 2013 (Obama will never close Guantanamo, says analyst BBC News, Todays News Headlines, 4/30/1, http://www.rapidnewsupdate.com/obama-will-never-close-guantanamosays-analyst-bbc-news/8939) US President Barack Obama has pledged a new push to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, amid a growing prisoner hunger strike there. The BBCs Mishal Husain was joined by Robin Simcox from the Henry Jackson Society, a UK think tank, and lawyer Clive Stafford Smith, who defends many Guantanamo detainees, including some of those on hunger strike at the moment. Mr Simcox does not believe that the Guantanamo Bay detention facility will be closed. Indefinite detention actually is probably part of the legal landscape now, he says. I dont believe theres going to be a president, especially not President Obama, who shuts down Guantanamo Bay. Obama cannot close Guantanamo alone Crowley, 2013 (Michael Crowley, senior correspondent for TIME. He previously covered domestic politics and foreign policy for The New Republic, and was also a reporter at the Boston Globe. He has also written for such publications as New York magazine, GQ, Slate, and the New York Times magazine, Can Obama End the War on Terror?, Time, 5/24/13, http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/24/canobama-end-the-war-on-terror/) But while Obama has an obviously sincere desire to bring the war against al Qaeda to a close and close the books on Guantanamo, however, he also lacks the power to make these things happen on his own. The future of the terror war that Obama inherited from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney depends

on some very open questions: Will Republicans Play Along? The initial GOP response to Obamas speech was skeptical. The theme of the speech was that this war is winding down [but] the enemy is morphing and spreading, there are more theaters of conflict today than in several years, said GOP Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. The Presidents speech today will be viewed by terrorists as a victory, declared Saxby Chambliss of Georgia. Some of Obamas plans require no Republican signoffhe can change the rules governing drone strikes, for instance, by presidential directive. And he can transfer the dozens of Yemeni detainees at the camp who have been cleared for release back to their home country on his own. But fully shuttering Gitmo will require him to win Congresss permission to move dozens of the camps 166 inmates from Cuba into the U.S., something now barred by law. At the moment, some Republicans seem no more interested in helping him than they did when Obama first proposed this idea in 2009. GITMO must stay open for business, Chambliss said Thursday. Others are more amenable, though still skeptical: House Armed Services Chairman Buck McKeon, who would play a lead role in any Congressional action, calls himself open to a proposal from the president, but that plan has to consist of more than political talking points.

HR Cred Advantage

US Cred Low
US Isnt Seen as Valid Human Rights ActorMexico Proves
Fainaru and Booth 9 (Steve and William, reporters Washington Post Foreign Service, 79-2009, Washington Post, Mexican Army Using Torture to Battle Drug Traffickers, Rights Groups Say, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2009/07/08/AR2009070804197.html?sid=ST2009070804333)

Under the Mrida Initiative, a $1.4 billion counter-narcotics package that President George W. Bush requested in June 2007, 15 percent of the money cannot be released until the secretary of state reports that Mexico has made progress on human rights. The
requirements include the prosecution of suspected human rights offenders, the prohibition of testimony obtained through torture and regular consultations with

The State Department's Mrida human rights report will be delivered to Congress within weeks, according to a U.S. official involved in the process. The official described Mexico's human rights record as "a mixed bag " and said it remains unclear whether the report will be enough to satisfy the conditions to release the money. "This is the hardest part" of Mrida, the official said. At least $90.7 million allocated to Mexico to
independent human rights groups. fight drugs cannot be released unless Congress accepts the State Department's findings. An additional $24 million is also subject to Mrida's human rights conditions in the supplemental budget package that President Obama signed on June 24. Part of the Mrida funding is for inspection equipment, police training and support for the Mexican military. With the Mexican government and governors from U.S. border states clamoring for more assistance -- drug violence killed 769 Mexicans in June, one of the worst months since Caldern took office, in December 2006 -- the State Department is hoping that Congress will release the money despite human rights concerns, according to the U.S. official, who expressed frustration that the Mexican government has not provided more information about the army's progress, including the number of human rights cases that have been prosecuted. "The military justice system in Mexico is very opaque; it is very hard to get a handle on how many cases have been brought and what has been their disposition," said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. The Mexican government has long opposed the human rights conditions included in the Mrida agreement, and U.S. officials expect a backlash if Congress refuses to

Many Mexican human rights activists do not support the conditions, noting that they were imposed by a U.S government widely accused of torturing prisoners in Iraq, Afghanistan and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. "It really takes a lot of cynicism, a lot of hypocrisy, for the United States to say, 'We will give you money to fight drug trafficking as long as you respect human rights,' " said Jos Raymundo Daz Taboada, director of the Acapulco office of the Collective Against Torture and Impunity, which documents abuses in Guerrero.
release the money.

Guantanamo Undermines US Human Rights Credibility Russia Proves

Kravchenko 13 (Stepan, writer for Bloomberg, 1-18-13, Bloomberg, Russia Responds to U.S.
Blacklist With Guantanamo List http://www.speroforum.com/a/7440/Rights-report-cites-diminishingUS-credibility#.Ue2BJY3qnGg)

Dozens of U.S. citizens are now barred from entering Russia under the Guantanamo list, a retaliatory measure for U.S. sanctions on Russian officials suspected of involvement in the death of an anti-corruption lawyer, Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Ryabkov said. We made a decision to get the usual list wider, and called it The Guantanamo list for convenience, Ryabkov said today by phone. Its a label. Like Johnnie

Walker. The U.S. Congress last month imposed a visa ban and asset freeze on Russian officials allegedly linked to the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other human-rights abuses. Lawmakers in Moscow responded by banning U.S. adoptions of Russian children in a bill that Putin signed into law on Dec. 28. Magnitsky, an
attorney for London-based Hermitage Capital, alleged that Russian officials had committed a $230 million tax fraud. He was arrested in November 2008 and denied medical care during 11 months in pre-trial detention on fabricated tax- evasion charges, according to a Russian presidential human- rights body. He died at age 37 on Nov. 16, 2009 are now barred , an increase from 11 previously, Sergei Pushkov, a senior lawmaker, said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper published today. A former head of the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was denied entry, Ryabkov said, without elaborating. U.S citizen accused of kidnapping Russian nationals and committing crimes against Russian children

. Some 71 U.S. nationals

from entering Russia

Russian President Vladimir Putin last month criticized medieval conditions at Guantanamo Bay as he backed retaliation against the U.S. Magnitsky Act. At Guantanamo, they keep people in prison for years without any charges, he told hundreds of journalists at a news conference in Moscow. People there go around in shackles, like in medieval times.
are on the blacklist, as well as Guantanamo managers, he said.

Federal Government Ignores Human Rights Aspect of Guantanamo

Amnesty Interational 11(Amnesty International, 12-2011, Amnesty International Publications,
USA GUANTNAMO: A DECADE OF DAMAGE TO HUMAN RIGHTS, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/AMR51/103/2011/en/43fe877f-92c6-44b8-ad3e4840db5d0852/amr511032011en.pdf)
Among other things, the ICCPR prohibits torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, arbitrary detention (thereby prohibiting secret detention and enforced disappearance), unfair trial, and discrimination in the application of human rights. It also incorporates the right to remedy for victims of human rights violations. One can see why the Department of Justice raised a red flag about the ICCPR in relation to the Guantnamo detentions, especially given the emphasis placed on this treaty by the USA on the international stage. The ICCPR, the Bush administration proclaimed at the United Nations, was the most important human rights instrument adopted since the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as it sets forth a comprehensive body of human rights protections.13 Not so important, however, that the USA felt it should apply and respect those protections for its own war on terror detainees.

Violations of the ICCPR and other human rights treaties came to be part and parcel of the Guantnamo detentions. Detainees were subjected to torture or other ill-treatment either at the prison or before they arrived there. Prolonged incommunicado detention as well as possible enforced disappearances took place at Guantnamo as well as elsewhere in the US detention system. For years, hundreds of Guantnamo detainees were denied their right to have a judge rule on the lawfulness of their detention. The few that faced criminal charges during the Bush years were not brought
before any ordinary US court of law; instead, for such prosecutions the government invented an ad hoc system of military commissions, applying rules that fell far short of international fair trial standards. But, some might ask, is this not an old story? Interrogations at Guantnamo have all but ended, have they not, and anyway has not the ban on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment been reinforced by presidential order? The military commissions, now in their third incarnation since 2001, are surely better than they once were, and the detainees have had access to habeas corpus review since 2008 when the US Supreme Court finally rejected the Bush administrations notion that foreign nationals held at Guantnamo had no right to challenge the lawfulness of their detentions in federal court. Are not unhelpful terms like alien unlawful enemy combatant and war on terror now generally frowned upon by the administration, and is

after 10 years, why is Amnesty International still talking about Guantnamo as a human rights problem? The answer is that the detentions at Guantnamo, and the wider policies and practices of which they have been and remain a part, continue to inflict serious damage on global respect for human rights. While Guantnamo may have dropped from the news headlines, the human rights concerns associated with it are far from a finished story, as this report seeks to illooustrate. From day one, the USA failed to recognize the applicability of human rights law to the Guantnamo detentions. As o continue to hold detainees indefinitely without charge or criminal trial (or even after a detainee is acquitted at a military commission trial), wherever it pleases. The damage, then, will continue as long as the actual policies and practices that Guantnamo has come to symbolize remain. And while repetition of the promise to close Guantnamo is by now wearing thin, the failure to meet this promise has allowed the domestic discourse to be dominated by the politics of fear. This has made the likelihood of human rights principles being recognized and fully respected by the USA even more remote, and fed the possibility that a future president might expressly decide to keep the facility in operation indefinitely. At least four would-be Republican successors to President
unprecedented transparency not one of its stated priorities?14 So,

Obama said in televised debates in November 2011 that they would keep the Guantnamo prison open if they were to become President.16

US double-standards in human rights has sparked significant backlash

Li 13 (Su Li, a Beijing-based journalist for the Global Times. US double-standards on human rights
exposed 21 April 2013, http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/776486.shtml#.UfPfzo1OSSo)

The State Council Information Office issued a report on Sunday titled Human Rights Record of the United States in 2012. This is the 14th consecutive time that China has hit back at Washington's yearly assessment of human rights around the world. China observers are paying close attention to this war of words over human rights, which has long been a source of tension between the two largest
economies. In the past couple of years, there has been a subtle change in the international rivalry over the human rights issue. In October 2012, Russia's Duma, the lower house of parliament, for the first time, held a three-hour hearing on US human rights abuses and issued its first

annual report criticizing US human rights violations. Last year there was also a wave in which various countries, including China, Russia, Singapore, Venezuela, Cuba and Colombia, questioned the credibility of Washington's judgment of worldwide human rights conditions. The human rights issue is a worldwide problem, and it seems that both the offensive and defensive positions in this arena are gradually shifting. The double standards that Washington has been exploiting on human rights are clear-cut in its latest report as well. For instance, the report slams "deteriorating" human rights in China
and Vietnam while approving significant progress in Myanmar which is "in a historic transition toward democracy." The assessment is a well-manipulated political tool. As to China specifically, there is an increasingly evident contrast between the human rights conditions that the US accuses it of and those which the Chinese themselves feel in everyday life. Washington ignores the general tendency of human rights record in China, but instead picks out several individual dissidents and from them concludes China's "systematic" use of laws to silence individuals and suppress freedom. As experts have pointed out, among various strategic cards the US has against China, a consistent human rights attack is the most cost-effective one. But the Chinese should not be overly bothered by these periodic accusations. On the one hand, we should be open-minded to external criticism, which can be integrated into the driving force of domestic progress. There is certainly vast room for us to solve domestic problems and improve human rights. This will also help ease off strategic pressure from Washington. But on the other hand, we should stay cool-headed as China cannot abandon its political characteristics. After all, the nation will

never meet the standard set by Washington in the human rights issue, for Washington's standard literally means to transplant the US model and accomplishments with its own will.

US human rights abuses are used as justification for abuses in other countries
Nossel 12 (Suzanne Nossel is the executive director for Amnesty International USA. Call on President
Obama to keep his earlier human rights promises 7 November 2012. http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_ details.asp?NewsID=20434) Responding to the re-election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America, Suzanne Nossel said: When President Obama was first elected in 2008, many human rights activists rejoiced. It had been eight long years where the United States tortured, detained hundreds without charge and trial, and tried to justify the horrors of Abu Ghraib. President Obamas first campaign for the White House offered the promise of an administration that would recapture the United States credibility on human rights issues, bringing detention practices in line with international law, repudiating secrecy and ensuring that human rights werent traded away in the name of national security. More simply, President Obama promised a new dawn of American leadership, one in which human rights would be given more than lip-service. Unfortunately the first Obama administration broke many of its promises when human rights were pitted against national security interests. When it comes to countering terrorism, President Obama has hidden behind national security imperatives to shield administration policy in secrecy and pursue programmes such as expanded drone use. President Obamas second term will determine whether the post-9/11 stains on the United States human rights record are an anomaly or the new normal. It was Mitt Romney who said of the challenges of counter-terrorism that we can't kill our way out of this mess, but too many of President Obamas policies are an attempt to do just that. Unlawful killings and other human rights violations sanctioned by the US

government undermine the rule of law globally, creating a climate in which other countries can point to a double-standard to justify their own human rights abuses with the refrain, if the US government does that, why shouldnt we. The United States power and influence should derive from its commitment to the rule of law and
to advancing human rights and dignity. President Obama should not trade that away at any price. President Obama has been given a second chance to keep his promises on

human rights. Dont blow it.

US Cred Low Hunger Strikes

Force Feeding at Guantanamo is Torture
Cohn 13(Majorie, professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild and deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers, 5-12-2013, Truth-out.org, Death Is Preferable to Life at Obama's Guantanamo, http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/16328-death-is-preferable-to-life-atobamas-guantanamo)
More than 100 of the 166 detainees at Guantanamo are starving themselves to death. Twentythree of them are being force-fed. They strap you to a chair, tie up your wrists, your legs, your forehead and tightly around the waist, Fayiz Al-Kandari told his lawyer, Lt. Col. Barry Wingard. AlKandari, a Kuwaiti held at Guantanamo for 11 years, has never been charged with a crime. The tube makes his eyes water excessively and blood begins to trickle from the nose. Once the tube passes his throat the gag reflex kicks in. Warm liquid is poured into the body for 45 minutes to two hours. He feels like his body is going to convulse and often vomits, Wingard added. The United Nations Human

Rights Council concluded that force-feeding amounts to torture. The American Medical Association says that force-feeding violates medical ethics.
Every competent patient has the right to refuse medical intervention, including life-sustaining interventions, AMA President Jeremy Lazarus wrote to Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel. Yet President Barack Obama continues the tortuous Bush policy of force-feeding hunger strikers. Although a few days after his first inauguration, Obama promised to shutter Guantanamo, it remains open. I continue to believe that weve got to close Guantanamo, Obama declared in his April 30 press conference. But, he added, Congress determined that they would not let us close it. Obama signed a bill that Congress passed which erected barriers to closure. According to a Los Angeles Times editorial, Obama has refused to expend political capital on

closing Guantanamo. Rather than veto the defense authorization bills that have limited his ability to transfer inmates, he has signed them while raising questions about whether they intruded on his constitutional authority.

Hunger Strike Highlights Human Rights Abuses and Lawlessness of Guantanamo

NYTimes 13(New York Times Editorial Board, 4-5-2013, New York Times, Hunger Strike at
Guantnamo, http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/06/opinion/hunger-strike-at-guantanamobay.html?hp&_r=3&) The hunger strike that has spread since early February among the 166 detainees still at Guantnamo Bay is again exposing the lawlessness of the system that marooned them there. The government claims that around 40 detainees are taking part. Lawyers for detainees report that their clients say around 130 detainees in one part of the prison have taken part. Related News The number

matters less than the nature of the protest, however: this is a collective act of despair. Prisoners on the hunger strike say that they would rather die than remain in the purgatory of indefinite detention. Only three prisoners now at Guantnamo

have been found guilty of any crime, yet the others also are locked away, with dwindling hope of ever being released. Detainees there have gone on hunger strikes many times since the facility opened in 2002. A major strike in 2005 involved more than 200 detainees. But those earlier

actions were largely about the brutality of treatment the detainees received. The protest this time seems more fundamental. Gen. John Kelly of the Marines, whose
Southern Command oversees Guantnamo Bay, explained the motivation of the detainees at a Congressional hearing last month by saying, They had great optimism that Guantnamo

would be closed based on President Obamas pledge in his first campaign, but they are now devastated that nothing has changed. For 86 detainees, this is a
particular outrage. They were approved for release three years ago by a government task force, which included civilian and military agencies responsible for national security. But Congress outrageously has limited the presidents options in releasing them, through a statute that

makes it very difficult to use federal money to transfer Guantnamo prisoners anywhere. Fifty-six of those approved for release are Yemenis. The government, however, has said it
will not release them to Yemen for the foreseeable future, apparently because they might fall under the influence of people antagonistic to the United States. That false logic would mean that no Yemenis could ever travel to this country, but that is not the case. The other 30 detainees approved for release are from different countries, though the government will not say where they are from. Over the past decade, the government has sent detainees to at least 52 countries, The Times and NPR have determined, so it surely can find countries to take detainees who cannot be returned home. As for the remaining 80 prisoners, the three who have been convicted and the 30 or so who are subjects of active cases or investigations can be transferred to a military or civilian prison. The rest are in indefinite detention a legal limbo in which they are considered by the government to be too dangerous to release and too difficult to prosecute. Such detention is the essence of what has been wrong with

Guantnamo from the start. The cases of these detainees must be reviewed and resolved according to the rule of law. The government is force-feeding at least 10 of
the hunger strikers. International agreements among doctors say doctors must respect a strikers decision if he makes an informed and voluntary refusal to eat. But under American policy, Guantnamo doctors cannot adhere to those principles. The Obama administration justifies the force-feeding of detainees as protecting their safety and welfare. But the truly humane response to this crisis is to free

prisoners who have been approved for release, end indefinite detention and close the prison at Guantnamo.

Gitmo Internal
US credibility is shot due to scandals at Guantanamo Bay
Thomas C. Hilde (Professor at University of Maryland School of Public Policy), 5-30-09, Heinrich Boil Stiftung, http://www.lb.boell.org/downloads/Beyond_Guantanamo.pdf How to restore the credibility of a country whose foundations and self-understanding are based on the universality of freedom and human rights, but that has violated precisely those rights by practicing torture in Guantnamo and other prisons around the world? The image of the United States as a role model of liberal democracy has suffered tremendously over the last eight years. In the name of the global war on terror, former President Bush suspended the law for those detained as possible terrorists. Even though President Obamas promise to close Guantnamo is recognized by the international community as a first step towards

restoring U.S. credibility, several problems require comprehensive policy solutions: How to proceed with detainees that are considered to be dangerous? What to do with detainees who are cleared of suspicion, but might face torture in their country of origin? How to cope with evidence that is derived from torture?

Closing Guantanamo Key to Restoring US Credibility

VOA 9 (Voice of America, 10-27-2009, quoting Kenneth Roth director of Human Rights Watch,
Human Rights Watch Says Guantanamo Undermines US on Rights Issues , http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2007-03-06-voa15-66542732/554239.html)

the problem of hypocrisy emerges on other rights issues, with the United States holding terror suspects without trial at the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and perhaps elsewhere, and tolerating coercive interrogation techniques. "It is very difficult for the U.S. government today to
But Roth said condemn a government for the use of torture, when the CIA itself has tortured people using techniques such as water-boarding in the secret CIA detention facilities,"

is hard for the U.S. government to protest against the detention of somebody without trial, when it has hundreds of people held for up to five years in Guantanamo with a trial only a distant hope." Roth criticized Bush administration plans to try terror suspects
Roth said. "Similarly it through military commissions, a concept he said fell well short of accepted judicial standards and which he predicted would eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. He said at least some of the U.S. detainees have probably committed serious crimes and deserve to be brought to trial. But he said they should be trials

the Guantanamo facility, which has housed terrorism suspects since early 2002, Roth said that should be shut down outright. "Guantanamo should simply be closed," he said. "I mean it has become a symbol of injustice. It is a scar on America's reputation around the world. And there is no reason what anyone should continue to be held there. People
in which the defendant is allowed to challenge all the evidence and testimony against him, and in which hearsay evidence is invalid. As to should either be tried before a fair and proper tribunal or they should be released."

Guantanamo Imperils USs Moral Standing

Human Rights First 13 (Human Rights First, 7-23-2013, Human Rights First,
http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wp-content/uploads/HRF-Letter-RML-GTMO.pdf) The retired military leaders note that the torture at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo acts that violated the Geneva Conventions, the Convention Against Torture, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and domestic laws diminished the United States moral standing in the

world, and as long as the prison remains open, it will be a dark reminder of our past. They also note that the ongoing military commissions at Guantanamo [cut: in their many incarnations,] remain illegitimate in the eyes of the world. When the
presiding judge cannot answer whether the U.S. Constitution applies and the CIA was discovered to have the ability to censor the proceedings, among so many other delays and questions, the commissions are seen as a poor substitute for justice, they wrote. In addition, the retired admirals and generals say

Guantanamo imperils the United States ability to secure cooperation and gain intelligence from American allies abroad. They note, Both the military and the
intelligence community are only as effective as the information we collect from partners on the ground, who remain less likely to cooperate so long as the United States turns a blind eye to the rule of law.

With regard to closing the facility, the retired military leaders note that there remains a clear path forward. The 2010 Guantanamo Review Task Force, which included all the relevant security and intelligence agencies, provided a comprehensive framework for progress toward closing Guantanamo. The admirals and generals note that work should continue unimpeded by statutory transfer restrictions that impede the work of the Defense, State and intelligence agencies and that U.S. security officials and partners abroad can mitigate the risk of any transfers.

A2 Alt Cause
Plan Is First Step
HRW 08 (Human Rights Watch, 11-16-2008, HRW.org, US: Human Rights Agenda for the New
Administration, http://www.hrw.org/news/2008/11/14/us-human-rights-agenda-new-administration) The Bush administration's methodical disregard for the human rights of those detained in the campaign against terrorism has been disastrous for the global human rights cause, diminishing the moral standing of a government that traditionally was an ally in promoting human rights, and setting a powerful negative example for abusive governments around the world. Undoing the damage done will require a public commitment to a new course and firm measures to implement that policy. As first steps, President-elect

Obama should: Close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, prosecuting those detainees implicated in terrorism and sending the others to their home countries or appropriate countries of resettlement, including the United States. Prosecute terrorism suspects in regular federal courts rather than before military commissions,
which have failed to provide basic due process. Reject preventive detention (detention without trial) as an alternative to prosecuting terrorism suspects. Reject the "global war on terrorism" as a legal basis for detaining individuals outside a recognizable battlefield to deprive them of basic criminal justice rights.

Symbolism of Guantanamo is KEYAll other benefits follows from it

Dodd 07 (Chris, former US Senator of CT, 6-21-2007, Hearing before the Commission on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, GUANTANAMO: IMPLICATIONS FOR U.S. HUMAN RIGHTS LEADERSHIP ) I want to thank Senator Cardin and Congressman Hasting, cochairs of the U.S. Helsinki Commission, for holding todays critically important hearing. As we all know, sseveral hundred individuals are still being held as enemy combatants by the United States government at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. According to a Red Cross report, prisoners in Guantanamo Bay have been subjected to cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment that is tantamount to torture. Among the abuses cited in the report are beatings, extended periods of isolation, sexual humiliation, and prolonged use of stress positions. Guantanamo Bay and the grotesque abuses that have occurred there

are not simply a moral stain on our country. More than that, the existence of this prison, which was purposely designed to circumvent public and legal scrutiny into the treatment and trying of detainees, significantly hampers the credibility of our nation as we battle against extremists around the world. It also significantly undermines US human rights leadership, and it provides excuses for even the most grotesque violators of human rights. I firmly believe that we must make every effort to protect our country from potential threats to our national security. At the same time, we must make sure that we uphold our democratic ideals. It is simply a false choice to choose between security and morality, between safety and legality. That is why I introduced
the Restoring the Constitution Act of 2007, which, among other things, would have restored the right of

Habeas Corpus to all those held by the United States government, and would have also restored the Geneva Conventions, both of which were stripped from the Military Commissions Act which was shamefully enacted into law this past fall. But more than just restoring these key rights,

we

need to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay as soon as possible. I

commend Senators Feinstein and Harkin who have both introduced separate legislation that would mandate the closure of Guantanamo bay. These two bills, both of which I have cosponsored, would provide for the transfer of those who are deemed to be dangerous to other legally credible and established facilities for prosecution. This Administration made an egregious mistake in opening this facility, and compounded that mistake by purposely eschewing long held national law and international treaty obligations to protect the human rights of all individuals. The time has long passed for this

facility to be closed and for us to restore the rule of law, and the moral and political credibility of US human rights leadership around the world.

Guantanamo is a Symbol of US Moral Decrepitude

RFE/RL 7 (Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, 1-12-2007, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reprinted in Spero News, Rights report cites diminishing US credibility, http://www.speroforum.com/a/7440/Rights-report-cites-diminishing-UScredibility#.Ue2BJY3qnGg)
But this year's report takes particular aim at the United States. The United States -- according to Human Rights Watch -- used to lead the world in promoting global human rights. But the group argues that because of the antiterrorism policies of U.S. President George W. Bush, U.S. credibility on rights has been "utterly undermined." For Human Rights Watch, America's Guantanamo Bay detention facility in Cuba, where foreigners identified as "enemy combatants" have been detained indefinitely without trial, symbolizes Washington's abdication of moral leadership. So does the use of what Bush has called "alternative" interrogation procedures. Among the most controversial is holding detainees' heads under water for prolonged periods of time -- which Human Rights Watch calls a "classic torture technique." "The reason Human Rights Watch selected the fifth anniversary of

Guantanamo to launch our annual report is because it really highlights the leadership crisis that is facing the human rights movement these days at the governmental level," HRW Executive Director Kenneth Roth told RFE/RL. "Traditionally, we're
used to looking toward the United States to take the lead, on at least many human rights issues. But because of Guantanamo, because of the Bush administration's policy of using torture and detention without trial as a way of combating terrorism, U.S. credibility on human rights is simply shot in many parts of the world. It is dramatically undermined. And so there's an urgent need for someone else to come in and fill that leadership void."

Guantanamo is a Symbol of US Human Rights Abuses

Bauxhall 8(Peter, writer for ISN Security Watch, 4-15-2008, International Security and Relations
Network, US: Human rights and realpolitik)

Progressives in the US are bemoaning their country's besmirched human rights image of the last few years. They blame the Bush administration, of course, pointing to atrocities such as Abu Ghraib and the absence of constitutional rights for Guantanamo detainees as examples of human rights abuses by the US government. These circumstances have damaged the credibility of the US

to advocate for human rights elsewhere. "It is not the Statue of Liberty anymore that people associate with the United States," said John Podesta, president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal, Washington-based think tank, at a human rights conference held last week at Georgetown University in Washington. "It is the black hole of Guantanamo and the picture of an Iraqi standing on a box with electrodes attached to him at Abu Ghraib."

A2 Conditions Have Improved

Changes Obama made arent enough torture is ongoing and perceived
Martin, 11 (Patrick, White House, US media stonewall on Guantanamo, World Socialist Website,
WSWS, http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2011/04/pers-a27.html, accessed 7/23/13) PE Obama gets a clean bill of health, according to the Times The torture has

stopped. The inmates cases have been reviewed. But the detention camp in Cuba remains a festering sore on this countrys global reputation. Hampered by
ideologues and cowards in Congress, President Obama has made scant progress in healing it. Actually, the torture is ongoing. Indefinite detention without prospect of either a judicial hearing or eventual release is itself a form of torture. So are the constant interrogations to which many of the prisoners are still subjected, although some of them are more than nine years removed from any association with Al Qaeda, and therefore can hardly be encompassed by the ticking time bomb scenario invariably cited as justification for their treatment. The detention camp at Guantanamo should be closed immediately, and all those jailed there released or tried through a civilian judicial process in which basic democratic rights and constitutional norms are observed in full. Those US government officials, both civilian and military, who are responsible for the creation and continuation of this concentration camp should themselves be held to account before an international tribunal.

Closure Key
Closing Guantanamo Signals the USs Intent to Respect Human Rights
Shuttack 08(John, CEO of the John F. Kennedy Library Foundation and a lecturer on U.S. foreign
policy at Tufts University, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labor from 1993 to 1998, and Ambassador to the Czech Republic from 1998 to 2000, 11-2008, American Bar Association, http://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol35_2008/hum an_rights_fall2008/hr_fall08_shattuck.html) Fortunately, history shows that U.S. credibility on human rights can be restored when our governments policies reflect our nations values. A series of bipartisan initiatives during five recent presidenciesthree Republican and two Democraticillustrates the point. President Gerald Ford signed the Helsinki Accords, paving the way for international recognition of the cause of human rights inside the Soviet bloc. President Jimmy Carter mobilized democratic governments to press for the release of political prisoners by repressive regimes. President Ronald Reagan signed the Con-vention against Torture and persuaded a Republican-dominated Senate to ratify it. President George H. W. Bush joined with other governments in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe to nurture new democracies and respect for human rights following the end of the Cold War. And President Bill Clinton worked with NATO and the UN to implement the Genocide Conven-tion and bring an end to the human rights catastrophe in the Balkans. Mr. President, you can restore U.S. influence by reconnecting the nations values and policies on human rights and the rule of law. Among the initiatives that you might take are the following. Human Rights Law Enforcement. You should announce that the United States is bound by the human rights treaties and conventions that it has ratified and adopted as domestic law,

including the Geneva Conventions, the Torture Convention, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. You should follow through with your commitment to close the detention center at Guantanamo and transfer detainees to this country for determinations whether to try them in U.S. courts or release them. Fully complying with the Geneva Conventions would not preclude the United States from trying detainees in military commissions under constitutional standards of due process, nor would it restrict the governments authority to conduct lawful interrogations to obtain intelligence in-formation about terrorist activities.

Closing Guantanamo Key to US Credibility

Carter 08 (Jimmy, former President of the United States, 12-10-2008, The Carter Center orginially
published in the Washington Post, Obama's Human Rights Opportunity Today marks the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. With a new administration and a new vision coming to the White House, we have the opportunity

to move boldly to restore the moral authority behind the worldwide human rights movement. But the first steps must be taken at home. President-elect Barack Obama

has pledged to shut down the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay and end torture, which can be accomplished by executive orders to close the prison and by enforcing existing prohibitions against torture by any U.S. representative, including FBI and CIA agents. The detention of people secretly or indefinitely and without due process must cease, and their cases should be transferred to our courts, which have proved their competence in trying those accused of terrorism. Further, a nonpartisan expert commission should be named to conduct a thorough review of U.S. practices related to unwarranted arrest, torture, secret detention, extraordinary rendition, abandonment of habeas corpus and related matters. Acknowledging to the world that the United States also has made

mistakes will give credence to our becoming "a more perfect union" -- a message that would resonate worldwide. Together, these actions will help us restore our nation's principles and embolden others abroad who want higher moral standards for their own societies. By putting its house in order, the United States would reclaim its moral authority and wield not only the political capital but also the credibility needed to engage in frank but respectful bilateral dialogues on the protection of human rights as central to world peace and prosperity.
Closing Guantanamo is a crucial first step to restoring US credibility Suzanne Trimel (Director media relations of Amnesty International USA), 11-12-2012, Amnesty
International, With United States Election to U.N. Human Rights Council, Obama Administration Must Regain Credibility and Fix Approach to Counter-Terrorism, http://www.amnestyusa.org/news/pressreleases/with-united-states-election-to-un-human-rights-council-obama-administration-must-regaincredibility) (New York) -- Suzanne Nossel, Amnesty International USA executive director, made the following comment today in response to the United States election to the United Nations Human Rights Council: "The most important contribution the United States can now

make to the cause of human rights is a determined effort to regain its own credibility. While we welcome the pledges and commitments the United States has made to win election to the Council, the U.S. cannot urge the rule of law, accountability and transparency in Geneva, while exempting itself from international standards and shielding key aspects of its own conduct from scrutiny. The continued indefinite detention without criminal charges of 166 men at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, the ongoing
military commission proceedings that fail to meet fair trial standards, a drone program shrouded in secrecy and the lack of accountability for torture and disappearances in the

socalled 'war on terror' undermine human rights and undercut the legitimacy of the U.S.s voice at the Council."

Gitmo strains US record of having just human rights

Diane Dimond (Journalist, reporter, television host), 07-20-13, NoozHawk, Diane Dimond: Its Time to Close Guantanamo Bay, Transfer Prisoners to U.S, http://www.noozhawk.com/article/diane_dimond_guantanamo_bay We like to think of ourselves as a great nation, a compassionate country that puts human rights at the forefront of everything we do. Then, how in the world can

we defend what the United States continues to do at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba?

The American prison for enemy combatants was established in January 2002 by then-President George W. Bush as a place to park detainees who were connected with the radical Muslim movement waging war against America. A total of 779 prisoners have been sent to Gitmo, and today 11 years later we still hold 166 of them. No charges have been filed against most of these men. Years ago, about half of them were cleared for return to their home countries (or a willing third-party country), yet they still sit at Gitmo. President Barack Obama made an election promise to close Guantanamo Bay back in 2007, but he was blocked by Congress, which passed restrictions on what could be done to transfer the prisoners. In April, Obama promised again to pressure Congress, saying, The idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests and it needs to stop. The reality, however, is that it is unlikely our fractious Congress will do anything. So, the 166 men at Gitmo remain in a protracted state of imprisoned limbo, and more than half of them have been on a prolonged hunger strike. Over the years, their health has become so perilous at times that the U.S. military made the decision to strap them down in chairs and force-feed them though tubes inserted in their noses. What have we wrought? Are human rights activists correct when they say Americas policies

have left the detainees so completely hopeless and suicidal that they are driven to starve themselves to death? Or are U.S. military officials right when they say the prisoners
denying themselves food is just another weapon in their arsenal to paint America as the Great Satan? I dont know the answer. Most likely it is a combination of the two. But the U.S. practice of forcible feeding has been roundly condemned by the World Medical Association, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the American Medical Association, which declared the forced feeding violates core ethical values of the medical profession. Two Democratic senators Dianne Feinstein of California and Richard Durbin of Illinois have written to Obama, asking him to order an immediate stop to the painful, humiliating and degrading process. In a most unusual step, a federal court judge named Gladys Kessler, ruling on a Gitmo prisoners request for an injunction against his forced-feeding, made a direct appeal to Obama to take action on the issue that has been going on for so long. I wonder if the average American knows about the detainees individual stories and what has happened to them since theyve been in U.S. custody. Their cases are shocking. The longest continuous hunger-striker appears to Abdul Rahman Shalabi, 35, a Saudi man who reportedly has been largely tube-fed since 2005. Mohammed Bawazir, 33, a Yemeni, had a lawyer who went to U.S. federal court to try to stop the forcedfeeding of his client and lost. That was back in 2006. Another detainee, Tariq Ba Awdah, originally from Yemen, has apparently been on an uninterrupted hunger strike since February 2007. According to the Miami Herald, the 35-year-old wrote to his lawyer, I havent tasted food for over six years. Today, 45 Gitmo prisoners are being given nourishment through forcibly inserted gastric tubes. Think of that in reallife terms. Every single day American soldiers are under orders to scoop up these malnourished and skeletal prisoners, strap them down and insert tubes into their noses so nutrients can be administered. I am positive that not one of those soldiers looks forward to that duty. There are recent reports that some of the other hunger-strikers have begun to eat again, but military doctors told The New York Times they must be on hand to guard against refeeding syndrome, which can be fatal when undernourished people suddenly consume food. Again, what have we wrought? Are you sure that America the great and benevolent super power that we think we are couldnt have come up with a better solution for handling these prisoners? There is a part of me that is ashamed it has come to this. No right-thinking person advocates opening up the gates of Gitmo and simply waving goodbye to these 166 prisoners. Some most likely still pose a threat to the United States. But lets redouble our efforts to do the right thing. A good first step would be to seriously concentrate on getting those low-risk prisoners who have already been cleared for release out of Gitmo. Lets face it, at this point Gitmo has imprisoned all of us

imprisoned us in our own braggadocio that we are a country based on human

rights. Guantanamo Bay prison is living proof that we are not, and what has already happened there will be a historic stain on our human rights record.

Russia Card
Kills US CredibilityRussia Proves
Kravchenko 13 (Stepan, writer for Bloomberg, 1-18-13, Bloomberg, Russia Responds to U.S.
Blacklist With Guantanamo List http://www.speroforum.com/a/7440/Rights-report-cites-diminishingUS-credibility#.Ue2BJY3qnGg)

Dozens of U.S. citizens are now barred from entering Russia under the
Guantanamo list, a retaliatory measure for U.S. sanctions on Russian officials suspected of involvement in the death of an anti-corruption lawyer, Deputy Foreign Affairs Minister Sergei Ryabkov said. We made a decision to get the usual list wider, and called it The Guantanamo list for convenience, Ryabkov said today by phone. Its a label. Like Johnnie Walker. The U.S. Congress last month imposed a visa ban and asset freeze on Russian officials allegedly linked to the death of lawyer Sergei Magnitsky and other human-rights abuses. Lawmakers in Moscow responded by banning U.S. adoptions of Russian children in a bill that Putin signed into law on Dec. 28. Magnitsky, an attorney for London-based Hermitage Capital, alleged that Russian officials had committed a $230 million tax fraud. He was arrested in November 2008 and denied medical care during 11 months in pre-trial detention on fabricated tax- evasion charges, according to a Russian presidential human- rights body. He died at age 37 on Nov. 16, 2009. Some 71 U.S. nationals are now barred from entering Russia, an increase from 11 previously, Sergei Pushkov, a senior lawmaker, said in an interview with the Izvestia newspaper published today. A former head of the U.S. military detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, was denied entry, Ryabkov said, without elaborating. U.S citizen accused of kidnapping Russian nationals and committing crimes against Russian children are on the blacklist, as well as Guantanamo managers, he said. Russian President

Vladimir Putin last month criticized medieval conditions at Guantanamo Bay as he backed retaliation against the U.S. Magnitsky Act. At Guantanamo, they keep people in prison for years without any charges, he told hundreds of journalists at a news conference in Moscow. People there go around in shackles, like in medieval times.

Impact Central Asia

Human rights cred stops Central Asian war
Hill 1 (Fiona, Fellow Brookings Institution, The Caucasus and Central Asia: How The United States
and its Allies Can Stave Off A Crisis, Policy Brief #80, http://www.brookings.edu/comm/policybriefs/pb80.htm) In the next two years, the

Caucasus and Central Asian states could become zones of interstate competition similar to the Middle East and Northeast Asia. Economic and political
crises, or the intensification of war in Chechnya or Afghanistan, might lead to the "Balkanization" of the regions. This, in turn, could result in military intervention by any of the major powers. Given the fact that both Turkey and Iran threatened intervention in the Caucasus at the peak of the Nagorno-Karabakh war in 1992-1993, this risk should be taken seriously. Unfortunately, the Caucasus and Central Asian states lack the capacity to tackle crises without outside help. Economic collapse has produced social dislocation and extreme poverty. Widespread corruption and the entrenchment of aging leaders and their families have eroded support for central governments and constrained the development of a new generation of leaders. The internal weakness of the Caucasus and Central Asian states, combined with brutal regional wars, makes them extremely vulnerable to outside pressureespecially from Russia. Although Russia itself is weak, it is far stronger than all the states combined, and while its direct influence over their affairs has declined since the collapse of the Soviet Union, it remains the dominant economic, political, and military force. The West will have to assist the states in bolstering their institutional capacity and in promoting cooperation among them. American engagement remains crucial given its weight on the international stage, the potential threats to its own security, and the fact that it has leverage in the regions. In spite of a few glitches, the Caucasus and Central Asian states have been receptive to the United States and are among its few potential allies in a zone where other states are not so amenable to U.S. activity. Regional countries need American moral and material support to maintain

independence in the face of increasing pressures, and its guidance in dealing with presidential transition crises and addressing human rights abuses. Even with limited political and financial resources, U.S. leadership can do a great deal to defuse regional tensions and mitigate problems. However, this will only be possible if a policy is defined early
and communicated clearly, if there is a particular focus on partnership with European allies in addressing regional challenges, and if Russia is encouraged to become a force for stability rather than a factor for instability in the regions.

Global nuclear war

Blank 99 (Steven, Professor of Research Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, Oil and
Geopolitics in the Caspian Region) Past experience

suggests Moscow will even threaten a Third World War if there is Turkish intervention in the Transcaucasus and the 1997 Russo-Armenian Treaty of
Friendship, Cooperation, and Mutual Assistance and the 1994 Turkish-Azerbaijani Treaty of Friendship and Cooperation suggest just such a possibility. Conceivably, the two larger states could then be

dragged in to rescue their allies from defeat. The Russo-Armenian treaty is a virtual bilateral
military alliance against Baku, in that it reaffirms Russias lasting military presence in Armenia, commits Armenia not to jo in NATO, and could justify further fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh or further military pressure against Azerbaijan that will impede energy exploration and marketing. It also reconfirms Russias determination to resist an expanded U.S. presence and remain th e exclusive regional hegemon. Thus, many structural conditions for conventional war or protracted ethnic conflict where third parties intervene now exist in the Transcaucasus. Many

Third World conflicts generated by local structural factors have great potential for unintended escalation. Big powers often fear obliged to rescue their proxies and protgs. One or another big power may fail
to grasp the stakes for the other side since interests here are not as clear as in Europe. Hence, commitments involving the use of nuclear weapons or perhaps even conventional war to prevent defeat of a client are not well established or clear as in Europe. For instance, in 1993 Turkish noises

about intervening in the Karabakh War on behalf of Azerbaijan induced Russian leaders to threaten a nuclear war in such a case. This confirms the observations of Jim
Hoagland, the international correspondent of the Washington Post, that future wars involving Europe and America as allies will be fought either over resources in chaotic Third World locations or in ethnic upheavals on the southern fringe of Europe and Russia. Unfortunately, many such causes for conflict prevail across the Transcaspian. Precisely

because Turkey is a NATO ally but probably could not prevail in a long war against Russia, or if it could conceivably trigger a potential nuclear blow (not a small possibility given the erratic nature of Russias declared nuclear strategies), the danger of major war is higher here than almost anywhere else in the CIS or the so-called arc of crisis from the Balkans to China.

Impact China
Human rights credibility key to US cool war with China
Feldman 5-19 (Noah, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, How Guantanamo Affects China: Our
Human Rights Hypocrisies, Salon 2013, http://www.salon.com/2013/05/19/how_guantanamo_affects_china_our_human_rights_hypocrisies/)

The emerging historical moment is creating a new context for the rhetoric and practice of human rights. For the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union, the United States now has a major incentive to promote the international human rights agenda. So long as China continues to violate human rights, there may be no better ideological tool for the United States to gain advantage under cool war circumstances. To understand the trajectory of how human rights will matter
and be used in the coming era and to predict how China will respond we need to turn back to the origins of our ideas and practices of human rights. The combination of sincere belief and cynical manipulation in the human rights realm goes back to the end of World War II and the Cold War, and it demonstrates how power politics will necessarily shape the development of human rights in the future. Cold Rights Since the Nuremburg tribunals, it has been accepted in principle that the world should try to bring to justice the worst violators of international humanitarian law, which applies in wartime. The Nazi trials were not all they are sometimes remembered to be, and many contemporary observers believed they were little more than victors justice. Nevertheless, they did create an important new precedent. For the first time, members of a government were held criminally responsible by an international body for harms to individuals that they committed while in power. In this sense, at least, universal human rights were demonstrated, declared, and acted upon. Then, from a practical standpoint, nothing much happened. Early in the Cold War, the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That document, however, was not law. It was not even international law. It was called a declaration because it was, in legal terms, a hopeful, aspirational statement of ideals, but it had no enforcement mechanism and no legal commitment by the signatories to follow it. For most of the next twenty-five years, the topic of human rights rarely figured in American political rhetoric at the international level. It is not hard to see why. Until 1954 the United States had a formal, legal system of government-mandated segregation in place in many of its states. Until 1964 no federal law expressly prohibited racial discrimination by businesses. The next decade was spent in the painful process of trying to negotiate racial integration, not only in the American South, but in Northern states where segregation operated on a de facto basis even though it had not been enshrined in law. During these years, the United States had a great interest in avoiding public discussions of human rights. The Soviet Union, for its part, was able to point to race discrimination as evidence of U.S. hypocrisy. In the middle of the 1970s, things began to change. Having greatly reduced its

vulnerability to the charge of institutional racism, the United States could use the ideology of human rights to attack the Soviet Union. The presidential administration of Jimmy Carter began to institutionalize human rights criticism. Congress mandated annual country reports to monitor human rights violations around the world, including among U.S. allies. This was recognized at the time as something new,
even humorous. Cartoonist and political commentator Garry Trudeau created a new Doonesbury character a pleasant, ineffectual human rights officer in the Carter State Department and had him present

various absurd awards for human rights compliance. The effect of these cartoons was not primarily to accuse the U.S. government of hypocrisy, but to note rather sweetly the irony that this Cold War

power was beginning to speak the language of rights instead of power. At the same time, Eastern European dissidents, at great personal risk, signed documents like Charter 77 that condemned the Soviet system for violating human rights, to which it had made a symbolic commitment in the 1975 Helsinki Accords. This was a new strategy, a product of the Brezhnev era. The dissidents were making a play for Western attention and the support of Western governments and they got it. The human rights movement as a distinct, popular social movement swung into gear. The movement to free Soviet Jewry marks a striking example of Cold War human rights ideology. The movement primarily
consisted of Jews in one country seeking the rights of Jews in another country to practice Judaism and to emigrate to Israel. But it presented itself as a claim for the universal human rights to the freedom of conscience and travel. Its target was the Soviet Union. Initially foreign

policy realists like Kissinger dismissed the movement; seeking dtente, he told President Richard Nixon in no uncertain terms that the United States had no national interest in helping Soviet Jewry, even if they were to be gassed. Eventually, however, the movement managed to ally itself with Cold War strategy. Senator Henry Scoop Jackson successfully introduced legislation linking aid to the Soviet
Union with the freeing of Soviet Jewish dissidents. When the Cold War ended, the situation for human rights changed again. For the first time since Nuremberg, where the Americans and the Soviets had cooperated in the aftermath of their World War II alliance, new international tribunals were created to punish terrible wrongs. The international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, established in the 1990s, could not have happened during the Cold War, not because there were no massive human rights violations or even genocides during that period, but because every rights violator and genocidal dictator was in the pocket of either the United States or the Soviet Union. With the Soviets no longer on the scene, the United States and Western Europe could use criminal tribunals to make some after-the-fact reparation for their failure to prevent horrible postCold War crimes. As the tribunals were gathering steam, the Western European powers, with guarded U.S. participation, drafted the Rome Treaty, got signatories from around the world, and created the International Criminal Court. This permanent body is supposed to provide a regularized forum for doing the work performed by the special criminal tribunals erected after genocides. The ICC, too, would have been inconceivable during the Cold War, when both superpowers would have worried that such an entity might indict their dictator clients, to their own political detriment. When the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, its perceived interests regarding international rights enforcement shifted once more. The Clinton administration had signed the Rome Treaty creating the ICC. Under George W. Bush, the United States officially withdrew its signature. In the post-9/11 era, with two wars to fight, Americans worried that their soldiers or even their civilian leaders might find themselves charged with war crimes before the ICC. Beneath the immediate concern with the risks of violating international humanitarian law while war fighting lay a deeper structural reason for the United States to worry about international law. As the dominant global power after the Soviet collapse, the United States could do more or less what it wanted internationally. International law was therefore likely to be used to criticize the United States. Under these circumstances, strengthening the human rights regime more generally might carry appreciable costs to American freedom of action. Giving voice to this view, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld called international law a tool of the weak. Scholars complained about lawfare, the use of human rights law to achieve political or military aims. According to this vision, hampering U.S. freedom to act amounted to abuse of the pure

aims of human rights. To be sure, during this period of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the overall U.S. position was ambivalence about international law and human rights, not total rejection. In fact, the U.S. government became much more concerned about complying with the laws of war than it had ever been before. Although the executive branch violated international law in Guantnamo, the U.S. Supreme Court, another branch of the government, held that international law had to be applied there, at least insofar as it was incorporated into U.S. domestic law. The Court required hearings for detainees and then struck down the special tribunals that the Bush administration created. International law played a role both times. Even under George W. Bush, then, the U.S. government never wholly turned its back on the international rights regime because human rights law still

served U.S. interests. Most of the time, under most circumstances, the United States respects human rights much more than most nondemocracies. That respect makes it more legitimate as an international actor, the same way violations make it look illegitimate. For the United States to abandon human rights altogether would take away an important source of international legitimacy. It would provide a long-term advantage to countries that systematically violated or ignored human rights. The U.S. government, then, has always used the ideology of human rights as a political tool, deployed when convenient and ignored otherwise. It allied itself with human rights violators during the Cold War; during the war on terror, it justified its own human rights
violations by the necessity of protecting the security of the liberal democratic state. Today, now that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have wound down and China has continued to rise, the U.S. interest in focusing on human rights looks much stronger.

Impact Ethics
Refusing to engage their complicity with human rights violations is a prior ethical issue
Beversluis 89 (Eric H., Professor of Humanities Aquinas College and Ph.D. in Philosophy of
Education Northwestern University, On Shunning Undesirable Regimes: Ethics and Economic Sanctions, Public Affairs Quarterly, 3(2), April, p. 18-19) But how can a case for shunning be made on this view of morality? Whose interests (rights) does shunning protect? The shunner may well have to sacrifice his interest, e.g., by foregoing a beneficial trade relationship, but whose rights are thereby protected? In shunning there seem to be no rights that are protected. For shunning, as we have seen, does not assume that the resulting cost will change the disapproved behavior. If economic sanctions against South Africa will not bring apartheid to an end, and thus will not help the blacks get their rights, on what grounds might it be a duty to impose such sanctions? We find the answer when we note that there is another level of moral duties. When Galtung speaks of reinforcing... morality, he has identified a duty that goes beyond specific acts of respecting people's rights. The argument goes like this: There is more involved in respecting the rights of others than not violating them by ones actions. For if there is such a thing as a

moral order, which unites people in a moral community, then surely one has a duty (at least prima facie ) not only to avoid violating the rights of others with ones actions but also to support that moral order. Consider that the moral order itself contributes significantly to peoples rights being respected. It does so by encouraging and reinforcing moral behavior and by discouraging and sanctioning immoral behavior. In this moral community people mutually reinforce each others moral behavior and thus raise the overall level of morality. Were this moral order to disintegrate, were people to stop reinforcing each other's moral behavior, there would be much more violation of people's rights. Thus to
the extent that behavior affects the moral order, it indirectly affects people's rights. And this is where shunning fits in. Certain types of behavior constitute a direct attack on the moral

order. When the violation of human rights is flagrant, willful, and persistent, the offender is, as it were, thumbing her nose at the moral order, publicly rejecting it as binding her behavior. Clearly such behavior, if tolerated by society, will weaken and perhaps eventually undermine altogether the moral order. Let us look briefly at those three
conditions which turn immoral behavior into an attack on the moral order. An immoral action is flagrant if it is extremely or deliberately conspicuous; notorious, shocking. Etymologically the word means "burning" or "blazing." The definition of shunning implies therefore that those offenses require shunning which are shameless or indiscreet, which the person makes no effort to hide and no good-faith effort to excuse. Such actions "blaze forth" as an attack on the moral order. But to merit shunning the action must also be, willful and persistent. We do not consider the actions of the "backslider," the weak-willed, the one-time offender to be challenges to the moral order. It is the repeat offender, the unrepentent sinner, the cold-blooded violator of morality whose behavior demands that others publicly reaffirm the moral order. When someone flagrantly, willfully, and repeatedly violates the moral order, those who believe in the moral order, the members of the moral community, must respond in a way

that reaffirms the legitimacy of that moral order. How does shunning do this? First, by refusing publicly to have to do with such a person one announces support for the moral order and backs up the announcement with action. This action reinforces the commitment to the moral order both of the shunner and of the other
members of the community. (Secretary of State Shultz in effect made this argument in his call for international sanctions on Libya in the early days of 1986.) Further, shunning may have a moral

on the shunned person, even if the direct impact is not adequate to change the immoral behavior. If the shunned person thinks of herself as part of the moral community,
effect shunning may well make clear to her that she is, in fact, removing herself from that community by the behavior in question. Thus shunning may achieve by moral suasion what cannot be achieved by force.

Impact Genocide
Human rights abuses lead to genocide
JBI 10 (The Jacob Blaustein Institute for the Advancement of Human Rights. Preventing Genocide and
Mass Atrocities June 2010, http://www.jbi-humanrights.org/jacob-blaustein-institute/preventinggenocide-and-mass-atrocities.html) The Jacob Blaustein Institutes Genocide Prevention Project is working to clarify the extent of state obligations in terms of genocide prevention. At the request of the Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, JBI has under taken an extensive legal review, including consultations with a team of legal specialists and human rights experts, of the many indicators of genocide in order to identify the corresponding legal norms that can be invoked to remind governments of their obligations. The risk factors consist of a compilation of human rights abuses which have been recorded in the lead up to past genocides and their corresponding legal norms. The precursors can include a history of mass atrocities in a particular country; targeted violence against members of a particular group; the state-condoned use of dehumanizing, discriminatory hate speech against members of a particular group; employment and education practices that discriminate against specific groups; denial of citizenship to members of targeted groups; among other such practices. This list is not exhaustive, and pre-genocidal situations will have significant contextual differences that will require case-by-case analysis. The international community acknowledged the importance of establishing early warning mechanisms to effectively prevent the onset of genocide, most recently in the World Summit Outcome Document of 2005. States must be reminded that they have obligations to prevent genocide based on internationally accepted norms with which they are expected to comply. They must be provided with the information necessary to make them aware of the precursors to genocide and of the preventive steps they must take to halt potential genocidal acts. The importance and relevance of a normative framework for the prevention of genocide will better equip the Special Advisor to respond to situations that may appear pre-genocidal. The risk factors listed in the Compilation are derived from international legal norms found in the major international and regional human rights treaties and jurisprudence. The risk factors do not refer to random acts but to severe and systematic abuses of human rights. Many of the rights associated with the risk factors are non-derogable as set forth in Article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Though all of the risk factors in the compilation constitute violations of human rights and humanitarian law, each one in and of itself is a necessary but not sufficient causal factor of genocide. However, when one and/or more risk factors appears in combination with others and in certain circumstances including deteriorating political, economic and legal conditions in a society, they may well contribute to the onset of genocide. The presence of one or more risk factors therefore does not necessarily mean that genocide will take place, but it should

serve as an early warning to a state that it should take measures to mitigate the risk. The Compilation of Norms is in its near-final stages of review. It will serve to clearly set out
the legal basis for genocide prevention within already existing norms of international law, and facilitate with identifying specific situations of possible concern.

Genocide necessitates humanitarian intervention, biggest impact in round

Kassner 07 (Doctorate of Philosophy, University of Maryland, assistant professor University of
Baltimore, Rwanda and the Moral Obligation of Humanitarian Intervention, University of Maryland, http://drum.lib.umd.edu/bitstream/1903/6844/1/umi-umd-4333.pdf)

Another reason I have for evaluating the moral obligations states and the international community owed to the Rwandan people is directly related to my belief that there are circumstances under which humanitarian intervention is not only permissible, but obligatory. The Rwandan genocide presents an interesting case because it would seem that if we are ever to have duties or obligations to distant others that give rise to an obligation to intervene it would be to prevent and protect against genocide. It might be contended that an obligation of intervention to prevent death from starvation and extreme poverty is just as likely a candidate for general acceptance as the obligation of intervention to prevent genocide. I would agree that we have an obligation to aid distant others when preventable
starvation or extreme poverty threatens their lives, and I would agree that in certain cases where the starvation and impoverishment is due to government corruption or the theft of foreign aid (famine through corruption) we may have an obligation to intervene. I also believe, however,

that there are a number of morally significant differences between genocide, on the one hand, and famine through corruption, on the other, that make an obligation to intervene in the case of genocide more readily defensible.

Cognizant bystanders have an ethical responsibility to intervene on behalf of the victims

Vetlesen 2K (Arne Johan, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo, Genocide: A Case For the
Responsibility of the Bystander, Journal of Peace Research, July, http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/424645?&Search=yes&searchText=vetlesen&searchText= arne&searchText=johan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Darne%2Bjo han%2Bvetlesen%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=75&returnArti cleService=showFullText)

Most often, in cases of genocide, for every person directly victimized and killed there will be hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions, who are neither directly targeted as victims nor directly participating as perpetrators. The moral issues raised by genocide, taken as the illegal act par excellence, are not confined to the nexus of agent and victim. Those directly involved in a given instance of genocide will always form a minority, so to speak. The majority to the event will be formed by the contemporary bystanders. Such
bystanders are individuals; in their private and professional lives, they will belong to a vast score of groups and collectives, some informal and closely knit, others formal and detached as far as personal and emotional involvement are concerned. In the loose sense intended here, every contemporary citizen

cognizant of a specific ongoing instance of genocide, regardless of where in the world, counts as a bystander. Bystanders in this loose sense are cognizant, through TV, radio, newspapers, and other publicly available sources of information, of ongoing genocide somewhere in the world, but they are not - by profession or formal appointment involved in it. Theirs is a passive role, that of onlookers, although what starts out as a passive stance may, upon decision, convert into active engagement in the events at hand. I shall label this category passive bystanders. This group should be distinguished from bystanders by formal appointment: the latter bystanders have been professionally engaged as a 'third party' to the interaction between the two parties directly involved in acts of genocide. The stance of this third party to an ongoing

conflict, even one with genocidal implications, is in principle often seen as one of impartiality and neutrality, typically highlighted by a determined refusal to 'take sides'. This manner of principled non-involvement is frequently viewed as highly meritorious
(Vetlesen, 1998). A case in point would be UN personnel deployed to monitor a ceasefire between warring par- ties, or (as was their task in Bosnia) to see to it that the civilians within a UN-declared 'safe area' are effectively guaranteed 'peace and security', as set down in the mandate to establish such areas. By virtue of their assigned physical presence on the scene and the specific tasks given to them, such (groups of) bystanders may be referred to as bystanders by assignment What does it mean to be a contemporary bystander? To begin with, let us consider this question not from the expected viewpoint that of the bystander - but from the two viewpoints provided by the parties directly involved in the event. To put it as simply as possible: From the viewpoint of an agent of genocide, bystanders are persons possessing a potential (one needing to be estimated in every concrete case) to halt his ongoing actions. The perpetrator will fear the bystander to the extent that he has reason to believe that the bystander will intervene to halt the action already under way, and thereby frustrate the perpetrator's goal of eliminating the targeted group. That said, we immediately need to differentiate among the different categories of bystanders introduced above. It is obvious that the more knowledgeable and otherwise resourceful the bystander, the more the perpetrator will have reason to fear that the potential for such resistance will translate into action, meaning a more or less direct intervention by military or other means deemed efficient to reach the objective of halting the incipient genocide. Of course, one should distinguish between bystanders who remain inactive and those who become actively engaged. Nonetheless, the point to be stressed is that, in principle, even the most initially

passive and remote bystander possesses a potential to cease being a mere onlooker to the events unfolding. Outrage at what comes to pass may prompt the judgment that 'this simply must be stopped' and translate into action promoting that aim. But is not halting genocide first and fore- most a task, indeed a duty, for the victims themselves? The answer is simple: The sheer fact that genocide is happening shows that the targeted group has not proved itself able to prevent it. This being so, responsibility for halting what is now unfolding cannot rest with the victims alone; it must also be seen to rest with the party not itself affected but which is knowledgeable about - which is more or less literally witnessing - the genocide that is taking place. So whereas for the
agent, bystanders represent the potential of resistance, for the victims they may repre- sent the only source of hope left. In ethical terms, this is borne out in the notion of responsibility of

Emmanuel Levinas (1991), according to which responsibility grows bigger the weaker its addressee. Of course, agents of genocide may be caught more or less in delicto

flagrante. But in the age of television - with CNN being able to film and even interview doers as well as victims on the spot, and broadcast live to the entire television-watching world (such as was the case in the concentration camp Omarska in Bosnia in August 1992) (see Gutman, 1993) - physical co-presence to the event at hand is almost rendered superfluous. One need not have been there in order to have known what happened. The same holds for the impact of the day-to-day reporting from the ground by newspaper journalists of indisputable reputation. In order to beknowledgeable about ongoing genocide, it suffices to watch the television news or read the front pages of a daily newspaper. But, to be more precise, what exactly does it mean to act? What is to count as an action? We need to look briefly at the philosophical literature on the notion of action - as well as the notion of agent responsibility following from it - in order to get a better grasp of the moral issues involved in being a bystander to genocide, whether passive or active.

Third parties legitimize genocide by failure to act

Vetlesen 2K (Arne Johan, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo, Genocide: A Case For the
Responsibility of the Bystander, Journal of Peace Research, July, http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/424645?&Search=yes&searchText=vetlesen&searchText= arne&searchText=johan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Darne%2Bjo han%2Bvetlesen%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=75&returnArti cleService=showFullText)

'I never forget', says Paul Ricoeur in Oneself as Another, 'to speak of humans as acting and suffering The moral problem', he continues, 'is grafted onto the recognition of this essential dissymmetry between the one who acts and the one who undergoes, culminat- ing in the violence of the powerful agent.' To be
the 'sufferer' of a given action in Ricoeur's sense need not be negative; either 'the sufferer appears as the beneficiary of esteem or as the victim of disesteem, depending on whether the agent proves to be someone who distributes rewards or punishments'. Since there is to every action an agent and a sufferer (in the sense given), action is interaction; its structure is interper- sonal (Ricoeur, 1992: 145). But this is not

the whole picture. Actions are also omitted, endured, neglected, and the like; and Ricoeur takes these phenomena to remind us that on the level of interaction, just as on that of subjective understanding, not acting is still acting: neglecting, forgetting to do something, is also letting things be done by someone else, sometimes to the point of criminality. (Ricoeur, 1992: 157) Ricoeur's
systematic objective is to extend the theory of action from acting to suffering beings; again and again he emphasizes that 'every action has its agents and its patients' (1992: 157). Ricoeur's proposed extension certainly sounds plausible. Regrettably, his proposal stops halfway. The vital insight

articulated, albeit not developed, in the passages quoted is that not acting is still acting. Brought to bear on the case of genocide as a reported, ongoing affair, the inaction making a difference is the inaction of the bystander to unfolding genocide. The failure to act when confronted with such action, as is involved in accomplishing genocide, is a failure which carries a message to both the agent and the sufferer: the action may proceed. Knowing, yet still not acting, means granting acceptance to the action. Such inaction entails 'letting

things be done by someone else' - clearly, in the case of acknowledged genocide, 'to the point of criminality', to invoke one of the quotes from Ricoeur. In short, inaction here means complicity; accordingly, it raises the question of responsibility, guilt, and shame on the part of the inactive bystander, by which I mean the bystander who decides to remain inactive. In the view I am advancing, the theory of action
is satisfactorily extended only when it is recognized that the structure of action is triadic, not dyadic. It takes two to act, we are tempted to say - no more and no less. But is an action really the exclusive possession - a private affair - between the two parties immediately affected as agent and sufferer? For one thing, the repercussions of a particular piece of action are bound to reach far beyond the immediate dyadic setting. As Hannah Arendt (1958) famously observed, to act is to initiate, to make a new beginning in the world, to set in motion - and open-endedly so. Only the start of a specific action allows precise localization in space and time, besides our attributing it to a particular agent, as her property and no one else's. But, as for the repercussions, they evade being traced in any definite manner, to any final and definitive endpoint. To repeat, not all bystanders are equal. In particular, with regard

to the question of complicity raised above, some bystanders carry greater responsibility than others. If we continue to confine ourselves to bystanders in the present tense, i.e. to bystanders to contemporary, ongoing events, it is clear that some bystanders will be closer to the event than others. 'Closer' does not have to denote spatially closer; it may denote closeness by virtue of professional assignment as well, or by virtue of one's knowledge as an intellectual. Indeed, the spatial notion of responsibility and its proper scope is hopelessly out of tune with the moral issues prompted by acts facilitated by context-transcending modern technology (Jonas, 1979). Today, ethics in world politics must take the form of a deterritorialization of
responsibility (Campbell & Shapiro, 1999). Is degree of responsibility directly proportionate to degree of closeness to the event? The answer will hinge on how we conceptualize not only agency but responsibility as well. To clarify what is at stake here, some distinctions made by Larry May in his book Sharing Responsibility may be helpful. A famous quote from Edmund Burke sets the stage for

May's discussion: All that is necessary for evil to triumph in the world is for good people to do nothing. May goes on to observe that just as a person's inaction makes him or her at least partially responsible for harms that he or she could have prevented, so collective inaction of a group of persons may make the members of that group at least partially responsible for harms that the group could have prevented. (1992: 105) He then defines 'collective omission' as the failure of a group
that collectively chooses not to act; by contrast, 'collective inaction' refers to the failure to act of 'a collection of people that did not choose as a group to remain inactive but that could have acted as a group' (1992: 107). The latter case of collective inaction is particularly salient with respect to what May speaks of as 'putative groups', in which 'people are sometimes capable of acting in concert but in which no formal organization exists and, as a result, there is no decision-making apparatus' (1992: 109). The

fundamental premise informing May's discussion is that 'once one is aware of the things that one could do, and one then does not do them, then lack of action is something one has chosen' (1992: 119). For my purposes, the central question is
whether the harm (read genocide) that took place in Bosnia could have been prevented, or at least halted, by the contemporary bystanders to it. Employing the distinction made above between passive

can be held responsible for failing to prevent ongoing and well-documented cases of genocide.
bystanders and bystanders by assignment, we shall explore the extent to which both categories

Failure to act in the face of genocide is moral complicity

Vetlesen 2K (Arne Johan, Professor of Philosophy, University of Oslo, Genocide: A Case For the
Responsibility of the Bystander, Journal of Peace Research, July, http://www.jstor.org.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/stable/424645?&Search=yes&searchText=vetlesen&searchText= arne&searchText=johan&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Darne%2Bjo han%2Bvetlesen%26acc%3Don%26wc%3Don%26fc%3Doff&prevSearch=&item=1&ttl=75&returnArti cleService=showFullText) Considering the material I have presented from Bosnia, is there one lesson in particular that needs to be learned here? I believe there are three important lessons. The first is that the bystander is the one

who decides whether the harm wrought by the aggressor is permitted to stand unrectified or not. The bystander who reacts with non-reaction, with silence in the face of killing, helps legitimize that very killing. When nothing is done in the face of what is unfolding, and when what unfolds is, beyond doubt, killing of a genocidal nature, the message to the agent as well as to the direct victim is that such killing may continue. Knowing, yet deciding not to act when action would have been possible, entails complicity - that is to say, on general grounds, it counts as moral complicity (Unger, 1996), though we need to inquire further to
settle the question of strict legal - meaning punishable - complicity. I return to this below.

Genocide causes extinction; preventing it is an ethical verity for all

Harff-Gurr 81 (Barbara, Professor of Political Science Emerita at the U.S. Naval Academy in
Annapolis, Maryland, Humanitarian Intervention as a Remedy for Genocide: A Fresh Look at an Old Concept, University Microfilms, 1981, pg. 40)

One of the most enduring and abhorrent problems of the world is genocide,
which is neither particular to a specific race, class, or nation, nor is it rooted in any one, ethnocentric view of the world. Prohibition of genocide and affirmation of its opposite, the value of

life, are an eternal ethical verity, one whose practical implications necessarily outweigh possible theoretical objections and as such should lift it above prevailing ideologies or politics. Genocide concerns and potentially effects all people. People make up a legal system, according to Kelsen. Politics is the expression of conflict
among competing groups. Those in power give the political system its character, i.e. the state. The state, according to Kelsen, is nothing but the combined will of all its people. This abstract concept of the state may at first glance appear meaningless, because in reality not all people have an equal voice in the formation of the characteristics of the state. But I am not concerned with the

characteristics of the state but rather the essence of the state the people. Without a people there would be no state or legal system. With genocide

eventually there will be no people. Genocide is ultimately a threat to the existence of all. True, sometimes only certain groups are targeted, as in Nazi Germany. Sometimes a large part of the total population is eradicated, as in contemporary Cambodia.
Sometimes people are eliminated regardless of national origin the Christians in Roman times. Sometimes whole nations vanish the Amerindian societies after the Spanish conquest. And sometimes religious groups are persecuted the Mohammedans by the Crusaders. The culprit changes:

sometimes it is a specific state, or those in power in a state; occasionally it is the winners vs. the vanquished in international conflicts; and in its crudest form the stronger against the weaker. Since virtually every social group is a potential victim, genocide is a universal concern.

Impact Heg
Human rights credibility key to heg
Sen 5 (Sankar, Former Director, Indian National Police Academy, The Statesman, 4-5, Lexis)
There are other sources of strength. The US today is the third most populous country. Unlike other developed countries it has a birth rate which is near the replacement rate. It has a stable political system and in the realm of knowledge and ideas, it has, as Joseph Nye of Harvard University calls it, "a clear lead over others". American universities dominate in the field of higher education and American culture, both high-brow or low-brow, music, food, work styles and manners. The values of democracy, personal freedom, upward mobility and openness that find expression in American education and culture contribute to American power. It has been aptly said that American soft power looms larger than its economy and military assets and radiates with an intensity last seen in the days of the Roman empire. Globalisation wears a "made in USA" model. There are some scholars and thinkers who feel that this American predominance will be ephemeral and this unipolar moment will be brief. In international relations, if one nation becomes too strong, others will join hands to balance its power. There is also an opposite school holding the view that the present American pre-eminence will last well into the 21st century, only if the US is able to display strategic restraint and uses its power wisely. Predicting the rise and fall of nations is a hazardous guess. When Britain lost its American colonies in the 18th century, Horace Walpole visualised Britain's reduction to a little island as insignificant as Denmark or Sardinia. He failed to foresee the coming industrial revolution that would give Britain another century with greater power. Similarly, there were others who after the Vietnam war prophesied that American power will gradually contract and its hegemony will not last. But they did not foresee the third industrial revolution, which would give US new power and strength and a "second century". Today the US has assumed leadership of the global information revolution. Hegemonists and globalists Now the question is how America as a global superpower is going to use its vast resources. Geopolitical considerations that guided American policy for more than 100 years are no longer in existence. There are analysts who feel that soon America, which has overextended itself, will retreat from further engagements and withdraw military forces from Europe and Asia. This viewpoint is erroneous because of the profound changes that have taken place in global politics. In this age of globalisation American foreign policy no longer revolves around geography. Today al Qaeda offers

in the coming years America has to remain engaged abroad, but the question is regarding the manner and way of expanding an international order that suits American interests. On this there are two schools of thought among the American foreign policy-makers. There are hegemonists who are of the view that American
great threats to American security whether they operate from Afghanistan, Philippines or Western Europe. So power and influence is threatened by a combination of terrorism, rogue states, weapons of mass destruction as well as ambitions of other powers. They feel that to safeguard American safety as well as that of its allies there should be confident exercise of American power with few constraints on its freedom of action. Hegemonists see American primacy as the key to achieving its foreign policy goals. The other viewpoint is represented by globalists who feel that, instead of dictating, America should work in cooperation with other countries and international institutions. Unilateral American action will be counter-productive. This is because economic globalisation has been accompanied in recent days by military globalisation. Previously, distance neutralised military advantages and provided a buffer. Modern technology has now changed the situation. With widespread diffusion of technology, many states have acquired the capability of producing biological, chemical and nuclear weapons of mass destruction. Not only states but terrorist organisations are likely to be in possession of sophisticated and lethal weapons, which they can use with deadly effect against the most powerful states. To deal with catastrophic terrorism there is need for both the shield and the sword. The shield of preventive measures has to be strengthened, but defence measures at home alone will not help. Effective counter terrorism measures by Washington will be successful only if it obtains the support of other countries. The Bush Administration's National Security Strategy correctly points out that America today is threatened less by "conquering states than by the failed and failing ones". It is these states which offer opportunities to terrorists to exploit grievances and places to operate. The rebuilding of these states will require joint working with America's major allies. American military success in Afghanistan and precision bombing destroyed only a fraction of al Qaeda's cells. It retains cells in 60 other countries. Mere bombing cannot wipe them out from different parts of the world. The best response to transnational terrorism networks is the network of cooperating government agencies. Spreading disenchantment American hegemonic power is of course generating animosity. The imperial power always looks like a bully. The claim of a superpower to act in the interest of others is always taken with a grain of salt. It always creates fears and anxieties among other powers. The First World War had its genesis in Germany's rise to power and the fear it caused in Great Britain. Similarly in this century China's growth will create fear in the US and may generate conflict. Indeed

anti-American sentiment is sweeping

the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the aggressive style of the present
American President. Under George Bush, anti-Americanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to delegitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of

power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete progress. There is also another disquieting development. It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon. Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of

many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create disenchantment and may gradually affect American preeminence.

Global nuclear war

Khalilzad 95 (Zalmay, RAND Corporation, Losing The Moment? Washington Quarterly, Vol 18, No
2, p. 84) Under the third option, the United States would seek to retain global leadership and to preclude the rise of a global rival or a return to multipolarity for the indefinite future. On balance, this is the best long-term guiding principle and vision. Such a vision is desirable not as an end in itself, but because a world in which the United States exercises leadership would have tremendous advantages. First, the global environment would be more open and more receptive to American values -- democracy, free markets, and the rule of law. Second, such a world would have a better chance of dealing cooperatively with the world's major problems, such as nuclear proliferation, threats of regional hegemony by renegade states, and low-level conflicts. Finally, U.S. leadership would help preclude the rise of

another hostile global rival, enabling the United States and the world to avoid another global cold or hot war and all the attendant dangers, including a global nuclear exchange . U.S. leadership would therefore be more conducive to global stability than a bipolar or a multipolar balance of power system.

Impact Nuke War

U.S. credibility is key to human rights protection --- impact is global WMD conflict
Burke-White 4 (William W., Lecturer in Public and International Affairs and Senior Special Assistant
to the Dean Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University and Ph.D. Cambridge, Human Rights and National Security: The Strategic Correlation, The Harvard Human Rights Journal, Spring, 17 Harv. Hum. Rts. J. 249, Lexis) This Article presents a strategic--as opposed to ideological or normative--argument that the

promotion of human rights should be given a more prominent place in U.S. foreign policy. It does so by suggesting a correlation between the domestic human rights practices of states and their propensity to engage in aggressive international conduct. Among the chief threats to U.S. national security are acts of aggression by other states. Aggressive acts of war
may directly endanger the United States, as did the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, or they may require U.S. military action overseas, as in Kuwait fifty years later. Evidence from the post-Cold War period [*250] indicates that states that systematically abuse their own

citizens' human rights are also those most likely to engage in aggression. To the degree that improvements in various states' human rights records decrease the likelihood of aggressive war, a foreign policy informed by human rights can significantly enhance U.S. and global security. Since 1990, a state's domestic human rights policy appears to be a telling indicator of that state's propensity to engage in international aggression. A central element of U.S. foreign
policy has long been the preservation of peace and the prevention of such acts of aggression. 2 If the correlation discussed herein is accurate, it provides U.S. policymakers with a powerful new tool to enhance national security through the promotion of human rights. A strategic linkage between national security and human rights would result in a number of important policy modifications. First, it changes the prioritization of those countries U.S. policymakers have identified as presenting the greatest concern. Second, it alters some of the policy prescriptions for such states. Third, it offers states a means of signaling benign international intent through the improvement of their domestic human rights records. Fourth, it provides a way for a current government to prevent future governments from aggressive international behavior through the institutionalization of human rights protections. Fifth, it addresses the particular threat of human rights abusing states obtaining weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Finally, it offers a mechanism for U.S.-U.N. cooperation on human rights issues.

Impact Russia Democracy

Human rights cred is key to Russian democracy
Mendelson 9 (Sarah, Senior Fellow in the Russia and Eurasia Program Center for Strategic and
International Studies, U.S.-Russia Relations and the Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit, 6-19, http://www.tcf.org/publicat ions/internationalaffairs/USRussianRelationsandtheDemocracyandRuleofLawDeficit.pdf)

coping with authoritarian trends in Russia (and elsewhere) will involve changes in U.S. policies that have, on the surface, nothing to do with Russia. Bush administration counterterrorism policies that authorized torture, indefinite detention of terrorist suspects, and the rendering of detainees to secret
In fact, prisons and Guantnamo have had numerous negative unintended consequences for U.S. national security, including serving as a recruitment tool for al Qaeda and

have undercut whatever leverage the United States had, as well as limited the effectiveness of American decision-makers, to push back on authoritarian policies adopted by, among others, the Putin administration. At its worst, American departures from the rule of law may have enabled abuse inside Russia. These departures certainly left human rights defenders isolated.5 Repairing the damage to U.S. soft power and reversing the departure from human rights norms that characterized the Bush administrations counterterrorism policies will provide the Obama administration strategic and moral authority and improve the ability of the United States to work with allies. It also can have positive consequences for Obamas Russia policy. The changes that need to be made in U.S.
insurgents in Iraq.4 Less often recognized, these policies also
counterterrorism policies, however politically sensitive, are somewhat more straightforward than the adjustments that must be made to respond to the complex issues concerning Russia. The Obama administration must determine how best to engage Russian lead ers and the population on issues of importance to the United States, given Russias poor governance structures, the stark drop in oil prices, Russias continued aspirations for gr eat power status, and the rather serious resentment by Russians concerning American dominance and prior policies. The policy puzzle, therefore, is how to do all this without, at the same time, sacrificing our values and undercutting (yet again) U.S. soft p ower. This report assesses the political dynamics that have shaped Russias authoritarian drift, briefly addresses a few of the ways in which they matter for U.S. policy, and suggests several organizing principles to help the Obama administration manage this critical relationship. Possible approaches include working closely with Europe on a joint approach to Russia, accurately anticipating the unintended consequences of U.S. policy in one realm (such as Kosovo) for Russia policy, and embracing the rights of states to choose their Sarah E. Mendelson 5 own security alliances. A final important principle relates to U.S. engagement with Russians beyond the Kremlin. President Obama should speak directly to the Russian people, engaging in a manner that respects their interests and desires, but also reflects the core values of the Obama administration; that is, reject[s] as false the choice between our safety and our ideals.6 The Obama administration also sh ould endorse a platform and a process for a renewed dialogue between U.S. and Russian civil society. The View from the Kremlin Two interactive dynamics over the past several years have shaped the dominant approach by the Russian government to the outside world: the United States declined as a world power, and at the same time, the Russian state accumulated massive wealth from high gas and oil prices. Following what many in the Russian elite view as the humiliation of the 1990s, by 2008, Russia was no longer a status quo power. Instead, revisionist in nature , Russian authorities focused on the restoration of great power status.7 Fueled by petrodollars, the government tackled this project in numerous ways, including military exercises around the globe, soft power projects such as a twenty-four-hour-a-day English language cable news station, think tanks in New York and Paris, and perhaps most important, gas and oil distribution system s meant to make Russia a central player in energy security for decades to come.8 This restoration project undoubtedly will be slowed by the current financial crisis and drop in oil revenues, but the building blocks remain in place. As the restoration project evolved, the Putin administration increasingly challenged aspects of the post World War II and post cold war legal, security, and economic architecture, and suggested the need for new arrangements. Many in the Russian elite seemed to view the changes that have occurred in Europe over the past twenty years, such as the enlargement of the North 6 U.S.-Russian Relations and the Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU), as illegitimate, driven not by the choices of local governments or populations, but by the will of Washington. Nostalgia for the Soviet era, a related sentiment, is widely shared, and is an important source of former president and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putins popularity.9 Some experts even suggest that many in Russias governing structures believe that Europe whole and freethat is, postcold war Europeis not in the security interest of Russia. The Carnegie Moscow Centers Lilya Shevtsova has labeled this view great power nationalism and observes that the Putin-Medvedev-Lavrov doctrine derives from the premise that Russia seeks to contain the Westwhile the West is busy trying not to offend Russia.10 Some other studies suggest that Russian policymakers have attempted, in fact, to divide the United States from Europe, and generally have preferred bilateral to multilateral engagement.11 At the United Nations, Russia, together with China, repeatedly has challenged international responses to gross human rights violations in Burma, Darfur, and Zimbabwe, and it has engaged in systematic efforts to undermine the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europes (OSCE) election monitoring efforts and the Council of Europes human rights monitoring.12 Meanwhile, Russian lead ers seem to believe the current European security arrangements are soft commitments, ripe for renegotiation and restructuring. President Dmitri Medvedev has, in fact, called for a new collective security arrangement, at the same time reintroducing th e concept of spheres of influence.13 All of these actions taken together, along with the decline in U.S. soft power, have looked at times as if some in the Russian government were trying to reset the table on human rights and international law, exporting its democracy and rule of law deficit abroad. How best can the United States, together with Europe, respond to this situation? Two additional dynamics are relevant: Russian internal weaknesses, both political and economic, but also the degree to which the Russian authorities assessment of the condition of the international system is correct. For Sarah E. Mendelson 7 example, in August 2008, Russian government officials fecklessly deployed human rights and international law rhetoric to justify the Russian use of force in South Ossetiawas that just a murky reflection of the current deeply inconsistent international order?14 Will that calculation be challenged by the Obama administration? How can it do so effectively? Will we see a new era of more robust international organizations, underpinned by respect for human rights and international law? If not, will we be in for a period of serious instability in Europe, along Russias borders? Russias Democracy and Rule of Law Deficit What makes these questions so pressing is the reality that American and European political strategy

integrating Russia into the Euro-Atlantic community and thus encouraging democratic development has largely failed. By 2009, Vladimir Putins policies have systematically closed off nearly all legitimate structures for voicing opposition.
dating back to the early 1990s of
Many nongovernmental organizations are under daily pressure from the authorities.15 The parliament is dominated by a government-run party, United Russia, and outcomes of local and national elections are controlled by the authorities. The government controls national television. The few critically minded journalists that exist routinely are threatened or are under constant surveillance by the authorities, and twenty murders of journalists since 2000 have gone unsolved.16 One small newspaper known for its criticism of Kremlin policies has seen four of its journalists killed in recent years. At a minimum, the authorities have presided over an era of impunity, and at worst, some fear government authorities may have been directly involved in these deaths.17 Meanwhile, the democratic political opposition is extremely marginal and dysfunctionalirrespective of whatever government pressures are brought to bear on it. Russia has no leading liberal figures that might emerge as national leaders at present. In years past, the fighting among liberal parties was legendary, and led to multiple fratricidal losses in single-mandate districts, as liberal parties ran against one anotherback when there were competitive elections for parliamentary seats.18 Today, it is unclear when or how the democratic opposit ion will repair itself. Yet, as political space

has shrunk steadily in the past ten years, the majority of Russians do not appear to mind. In terms of the younger generation, the conventional wisdom that wealth would lead to a demand for democracy has not been borne out; only about 10 percent of survey respondents could be considered strongly supportive of democracy, while most are ambivalent. In the early 1990s, many in the West assumed that the older Soviet generation would be replaced eventually by a younger, pro-Western, pro-democratic generation. Experts and policymakers alike assumed this succession would be a natural course of events, like gravity. A similar conventional wisdom about the younger generation in Russia continues. It holds that iPods, lattes, skateboards, and other artifacts of Western consumer culture will translate into a desire for independent media, justice, and human rights. In 2005 and 2007, in an environment of steadily shrinking political space, a study based at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) explored how young Russians viewed Soviet history and Stalin. Our nationally representative surveys of 16-to-29-year-old Russians suggested that, despite economic prosperity, most young people gravitated enthusiasticall y to Vladimir Putins ideological platform of revisionist history and nostalgia. The narrative advanced by the government concerning recent history quite simply resonated with this younger generation. In both surveys, a majority believed that Stalin did more good than bad and that the collapse of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century. These findings undoubtedly reflected coordinated strategic communications efforts by government authorities, including support of a teachers guide rewriting Soviet history, downplaying the deaths of millions of citizens, and effacing historical memory. These actions facilitated Russias authoritarian trend.19 In sum, the Russian middle class and support for authoritarian governance coexist. The tacit bargain of the past decade, however, in which dissenters were punished but Russians pocketbooks grew, may now be threatened by the international economic crisis. Oil prices plunged from a high of $147 a barrel in July 2008 to about $40 a barrel in December 2008. If the price of oil stays low, the lubricating effect of oil and gas revenues may well dry up, laying bare Russias dysfunctional state institutions and challenging the authorities ability to govern. Economic hardship and poor governance seem, at least anecdotally, to correlate with an increase in public protest and nervousness on the part of the ruling authorities.20 Perhaps, in the long run, the mix of economic hard times and poor governance will stimulate a greater demand for democracy and the rule of law in Russia, as citizens grow unhappy with state institutions that do not function and link that dysfunction to poor governance. In the near term, we can expect growth in nationalism and xenophobia. 21 To be sure, the democracy and rule of law deficit and the growth in nationalism pose problems primarily for Russians. In the twenty-first century, independent investigative journalism and the legitimate use of courts for prosecution are necessary to fight corruption. Today, Russia is plagued by corruption, and the Russian authorities dominate both television and court decisions.22 Independent newspapers and Internet sites exist, but journalists who have engaged in investigative journalism have been killed or live under threat.23 In a state where the rule of man predominates, the population experiences the police as predatory rather than protective. Torture in police stations is said to be common and police officers who have been rotated through Chechnya are said to be especially abusive.24 In a 2004 CSIS survey of 2,400 Russians ages 16 to 65, 41 percent of respondents feared arbitrary arrest by the police.25 In a 2007 CSIS survey of 2,000 Russians ages 16 to 29, 62 percent of respondents fully or partially distrusted the police.26 While one cannot make direct comparisons for methodological reasons, it is worth bearing in mind a recent study of attitudes toward police in China, where only 25 percent reported distrust.27 Undoubtedly, the democracy and rule of law deficit varies regionally, but it is particularly worrisome in the southern regions of Russia. The govern ments approach to what it perceives as widespread radical Islamic sentiment in the North Caucasus has increased violence rather than contained it. Between May 1 and August 31, 2008, there were at least 282 incidents, and between September 1 and December 31, 2008 there were at least 333.28 When the situation is at its most dire, the Russian government appears not to control this part of its territory. Many experts worry that there will be war in the North Caucasus in 2009, or possibly that, south of the border, a Russian-Georgia war will break out again.29 That prognosis may be overly gloomy, but violence is clearly on the rise and the socioeconomic conditions in the region are dire. Why It Matters What does any of this have to do with the Obama administration?

The democracy and rule of law deficit in Russia has a range of security and human rights implications for the United States and our allies in Europe. For example, the Obama administration comes to office with a number of arms control goals. These plans may be complicated by the absence of Russian military reform that, in turn, correlates with abuse inside the army. (They are also
complicated by continued government reliance on nonconventional forces: in September 2008, President Medvedev committed to modernizing the nuclear arsenal.30)

Serious, joint counterterrorism efforts with the United States, Europe, and Russia are likely to remain illusive as long as the police and security services are corrupt and abusive, and the media, a potential source to expose that corruption, is largely controlled by the government. Even at the nongovernmental, track-two level, it is now difficult to have the sort of transatlantic Sarah E. Mendelson 11 policy dialogue on terrorism that has been
common among other nations and societies since 2001.31 The most dire evidence suggests that security service personnel or contractors have been deployed abroad, in European cities, to eliminate Kremlin enemies. In the most famous example, British authorities have sought the extradition from Moscow of former KGB bodyguard and current Duma member Andrew Lugovoi for the murder by Polonium poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko in London in Novemb er 2006.32 Kremlin proxies, such as Chechnyas Ramzan Kadyrov, may have agents doing the same on his behalf on the streets of Austria, also with apparent impunity.33 At a minimum, the Russian authorities seem to have drawn a red line at additional enlargement of Euro-Atlantic organizations. Instead of allowing states and societies to decide for themselves what alliances and security or economic arrangements they w ant, Russian officials speak of zones of interest and neutral spacespresumably such as Ukraine. In the worst case scenario, the Kremlin might decide to probe the resolve of existing NATO and EU security commitments. Presumably, this realization led General James Craddock to request that NATO begin defense planning for the Baltic states.34 Some believe, although the evidence is not clear, that the May 2007 cyber attack on Estonian government agencies, banks, newspapers, and other organizations was a first probe by the Russian government.35 In the August 2008 war in Georgia, for which all sides deserve some blame, experts saw evidence of additional Russian government cyber attacks and a prime example of blatant disregard for international law as the Russian government sought to change an internationally recognized border by force.36 Meanwhile, existing Euro-Atlantic organizations are negatively and directly affected by Russias democracy and rule of law deficit. In recent years, the European Court of Human Rights has heard far more cases from Russia than any other country, effectively substitutin g for Russias domestic judiciary. Some European human rights lawyers argue that this situation is severely undermining the courts efficacy and ability to handle cases from a broad range of coun tries. Moreover, the Russian government increasingly has failed to compensate victims or their families, apparently now risking its expulsion from the Council of Europe.37 According to numerous OSCE officials, the Kremlin has waged a systematic campaign to undercut the organizations various monitoring efforts.38 The emergent norm of international election observa tion has been undermined by the Kremlins attempts to legitimize fraudulent elections at home and in neighboring states, supporting a wave of authoritarian governments in this region.39

Global nuclear war

Goodby 2 (James E., Former Fellow US Institute of Peace, and Piet Buwalda and Dmitri Trenin, A
Strategy for Stable Peace: Toward a Euroatlantic Security Community, p. 27-29) A decade after the Cold War was solemnly buried, there is still no stable peace between Russia and the Western countries. Moreover, from the late 1990s the dynamic of the relationship has taken a negative direction. NATO's expansion to the east, the Kosovo crisis, and the second Chechen war stand out as milestones of the gradual slide toward something alternately described as a "cold peace" and a "new cold war." Frustration is steadily building on both sides. Mutual expectations have been drastically lowered. In the Western world, and in North America in particular, public expectations for Russia and its affairs have plummeted. "Russia fatigue" is widespread in Europe as well. In Russia itself, Western, especially U.S., policies are often described as being aimed at keeping Russia weak and fragmented, with a purpose of subjugating it. It

would appear, then, that today is anything but a propitious starting point for an effort to chart the road toward a security community centered on Europe that would include Russia. But such an effort is necessary and should not be delayed. At worst, a Russia that is not properly anchored in a common institutional framework with the West can turn into a loose nuclear cannon. If conflicts arise between Russia and its smaller neighbors, the West will not be able to sit them out. And a progressive alienation between Russia and the Western world would have a very negative impact on
domestic developments in Russia. Now that the German problem has been solved, the Russian problem looms as potentially

European Union can hardly envisage a modicum of stability along its eastern periphery unless it finds a formula to co-opt Russia as Europe's reliable associate. RUSSIAN DEMOCRATIZATION In the decade since the demise of the Soviet Union and the communist system, Russia has evolved into a genuinely pluralist society, although it is still a very incomplete democracy.
Europe's largest. The United States will not be able to ignore Russia's strategic nuclear arsenal, and the

To its credit, Russia has a constitution that proclaims separation of powers; it has a working parliament, an executive president, and a nominally independent judiciary. Between 1993 and 2000, three parliamentary and two presidential elections were held; for the first time in Russia's long history, transfer of power at the very top occurred peacefully and in accordance with a democratic constitution. This is already becoming a pattern. Power has been decentralized vertically as well as horizontally. Power monopoly is a thing of the past. Russia's regions have started to form distinct identities. The regional governors, or presidents of republics, within Russia are popularly elected, as are city mayors and regional legislatures. The national economy has been largely privatized. The media, though not genuinely independent either of the authorities or of the various vested interests, are free in principle. There is a large degree of religious freedom, and ideological oppression is nonexistent. Finally, Russians are free to travel abroad. These achievements are significant, and most of them are irreversible. Yet, Russia's development is handicapped by major hurdles to speedier societal transformation, as is occurring in Poland or Estonia. One hurdle is poor governance, stemming from the irresponsibility of the elites as much as from sheer incompetence. Toward the end of the Yeltsin era, the state itself appeared privatized, with parts of it serving the interests of various groups or strongmen. Corruption and crime are pervasive. Accustomed to living in an authoritarian state, many Russians began to associate democracy with chaos and thuggery. Another major problem is widespread poverty and the collapse of the social infrastructure, including health care. Too many Russians believe they have gained little or nothing from the economic and social changes of the past decade. Taken together, these factors work toward the restoration of some form of authoritarian and paternalistic rule.

Impact Terrorism
Human Rights Abuse Harm US Anti-terror Impacts
Malinowsky 8(Tom, Washington advocacy director for Human Rights Watch, fomer special assistant
to President Bill Clinton and senior director for foreign policy speechwriting at the National Security Council, 7-2008, American Academy of Political and Social Science, Restoring Moral Authority: Ending Torture, Secret Detention, and the Prison at Guantanamo Bay)

If the United States could beat al Qaeda simply by detaining or killing its members, then perhaps some degree of moral inconsistency and reputational harm might be acceptable. As the administration often asked, why should it matter that people don't like the United States as long as we're getting the terrorists? But as the Army Counterinsurgency Manual wisely reminds us, in fighting nontradi- tional terrorist foes, it is never possible to kill or capture every fighter (United States Army and United States Marine Corps 2006, para. 1-128 to 1129). Victory depends on cutting off the enemy's "recuperative power" - its ability to gain new adherents to its cause - by diminishing its legitimacy while increasing your own. The key to beating al Qaeda, then, lies in convincing ordinary people in the Muslim world that America's values and vision for the future are more attractive than those of its enemies. The United States cannot do that if it excuses itself from the values it preaches to others. The greatest damage may
have been done during the early days of the insur- gency in Iraq, when abuse of detainees at forward operating bases and facilities like Abu Ghraib was routine. Inevitably, many of the men U.S. forces rounded up in sweeps of dangerous Iraqi neighborhoods were not insurgents and were ulti- mately sent home. If these men experienced abuse, they likely emerged much more eager to fight Americans. As one Army sergeant put it in an interview with Human Rights Watch, "Half of these guys got released because they didn't do nothing. We sent them back to Fallujah. But if he's a good guy, you know, now he's a bad guy because of the way we treated him" (Human Rights Watch 2005, 14).

Impact War
State discrimination causes conflict
Thoms and Ron 7 (Oskar N.T. Thoms earned an M.A. in Sociology at McGill University in Montreal
and currently works as an independent research consultant. James Ron is Associate Professor at Carleton Universitys Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa. He publishes on issues of human rights, political violence, and transnational activism. Do Human Rights Violations Cause Internal Conict? Human Rights Quarterly by The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007, http://www.princeton.edu/~othoms/files/HRQ2007.pdf) State-sanctioned discrimination, which all human rights instruments regard as a violation, does appear to be a conict risk factor. This claim must remain tentative, however, since currently there is a lack of adequate and comparable cross-national measures of discrimination. The literature suggests that when state discrimination is either absent or widely ignored, inequalities are less likely to trigger acute grievances or violence. In the United States, for example, social inequalities are high, yet this rarely translates into sustained popular anger at the political system or the privileges of others. Empirical realities aside, many disadvantaged groups in America regard the US as a reasonably accessible polity, dampening grievances and reducing the potential for political violence. When this does not hold truefor example, during the civil rights era in the American South

discrimination helps spark political mobilization and, potentially, civil violence. Discrimination is often relevant to conict because it transforms inequalities into antagonistic group identities. When individuals face similar
circumstances and suffer from similar patterns of discrimination, powerful collective grievances can emerge, facilitating the formation of antagonistic groups. This, in turn, may create the potential for collective action and even violence.70 When discrimination is organized along

ethnic lines, groups are more receptive to ethnic or nationalist appeals, including those made by unscrupulous political leaders.71 Discrimination is
particularly relevant to ethnic conicts, creating or hardening ethnic identities where few existed before, or transforming uid cleavages into durable, antagonistic identities. Some scholars view ethnic conict as a creation of modern state discrimination, since ethnic groups struggle to capture key state resources such as control over legislation, territory, national symbols, physical security, social security, political representation, and taxation.72 State discrimination on any one of these may create grievances and greater potential for violence. Discrimination works in a number of ways. More often than not, the state allocates benets unequally, including access to jobs, education, contracts, licenses, or subsidies. Preferential access can be given either to groups or individuals through patronclient relations.73 Hybrid arrangements are also possible, in which individual clients are given special access and in return, mobilize entire groups for their patron. Discrimination may also work through the unequal distribution of costs, including disproportionately high taxes compared to government expenditures in a given region or community. In some cases, the truth matters less than popular perception. If one group has disproportionate control over the state, others may

feel discriminated against because they lack a sense of participation and trust.74 Regardless of the precise mechanism, the key point is that discrimination can create popular grievances. These grievances may allow group elites to claim that political

mobilization and even violence are necessary remedies. It is important to note,

however, that discrimination is not always an injustice, since it may serve as a counterweight to inequalities created in years past. In many parts of the post-colonial world, for example, control over the state and its agencies is a way of boosting the life chances of groups previously excluded from economic opportunities. Allocation of public resources along group lines is also not always a risk factor, and in some cases, may even promote stability. During Communist rule in the former Yugoslavia, for example, many positions in federal, provincial, and local bureaucracies were allocated by ethnic or national keys in an effort to guarantee group representation and parity. Some Canadian government agencies and political parties run along similar lines, as in the unofcial leadership rotation agreement within the federal Liberal party to preserve Anglophone-Francophone parity.75 Yet there is a risk here too; if the resources underwriting group-based agreements run dry, disappointed elites may enter the political arena and orchestrate the dissatisfaction of their . . . following,76 as occurred in the former Yugoslavia, Lebanon, and parts of the former Soviet Union. In these and other cases, long-standing and peaceful agreements broke down, and ethnic and confessional identities became the building blocks of war.

From a human rights perspective, discrimination is problematic since it violates fundamental tenets of fairness and equal access to public goods. Yet
preferential treatment may also serve a positive purpose,77 creating a thorny ethical and legal dilemma.78 Should human rights advocates seek to abolish all group benets, even when they redress historical injustices or provide peaceful alternatives to conict? Surely not; there must be situations in which group benets of a sort are worthwhile, if only for a time. Conservatives in the US now claim that afrmative action for visible minorities violates individual rights,79 but many social justice and human rights advocates would object. In Quebec, some have cited individual rights to protest laws promoting French in public life and business, while others respond that collective Francophone rights should have priority in some circumstances.80 Discrimination is a conict risk factor, but blanket condemnations of all collective arrangements should be avoided. Instead, a nuanced, contextual approach encourages us to focus on addressing the most toxic forms of discrimination in conict-prone regions and countries.

Violation of personal and security rights causes escalation

Thoms and Ron 7 (Oskar N.T. Thoms earned an M.A. in Sociology at McGill University in Montreal
and currently works as an independent research consultant. James Ron is Associate Professor at Carleton Universitys Norman Paterson School of International Affairs in Ottawa. He publishes on issues of human rights, political violence, and transnational activism. Do Human Rights Violations Cause Internal Conict? Human Rights Quarterly by The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2007, http://www.princeton.edu/~othoms/files/HRQ2007.pdf) While socioeconomic conditions rarely trigger violent conict on their own, violations of personal integrity or security rightsincluding indiscriminate killings, systematic torture, disappearances, or wide-scale imprisonmentdo provide a clear link to escalation.81 An authoritative statement on this count comes from sociologist Jeff Goodwin, whose study of 20th century revolutions argues that politics matter more than economics: [R]evolutionary movements were more consistently a response to severely constricted or even contracting political opportunities, including chronic and even increasing state repression. Ordinary people joined or supported revolutionary movements when no other means of political expression were available to them, or when they or their families and friends were the targets of violent repression that was perpetrated or tolerated by relatively weak states.82 State repression is a major risk factor because it can transform

latent grievances into active antagonisms, providing the persecuted with

strong motivations for violence. Although individuals and groups may grudgingly tolerate
economic inequality and discrimination for years, they are more likely to respond with violence when physically threatened or attacked. This response is especially likely when repression is indiscriminate, since quiescence offers little protection. Importantly, there is strong evidence that government repression is habit-forming and that past levels of repression have a powerful effect on current behavior. Like civil war, government repression seems to have a life of its own, re-emerging time and again.83 Governments are not the only ones capable of violating personal integrity rights. Non-state groups may also make extreme demands or use violence, thereby inviting government repression and conict escalation.84 As governments go after real and

imagined opponents, fear and anger spread, facilitating further mobilization.85 Importantly, one study presents statistical evidence in support of the argument that
states will switch from accommodation to repression, or vice versa, when either tactic meets with further rebellion or dissent. Thus, the choices dissidents make can profoundly shape government behavior.86

When both sides resort to violence, the proverbial vicious cycle often ensues.
To illustrate the repression-conict nexus, this article makes use of the Political Terror Scale (PTS), a ve-point index that ranks governments resort to state terror.87 Widely used by social scientists,88 PTS scores measure a states propensity to violate its citizens personal integrity rights, drawing on narrative reports by either Amnesty International or the US State Department.89 These scores range from one, where state terror is rare, to ve, where state terror is systematic. Graph 4 divides most of the worlds countries into ve groups according to their average PTS scores (based on Amnesty International reports) for the period of 1990 to 2003 and indicates the number of countries in each group that experienced at least one year of internal conict or war during that period.90 The graph suggests that the association between state repression and internal conict is strong. Of the thirty-six regimes engaged in

systematic or extensive state terror, thirty-one were also embroiled in internal conict. The widespread state terror category was almost evenly split, but sixty-nine of
the seventy-eight least repressive countries were conict free. Importantly, none of the countries that rarely resort to repression experienced conict. This apparent association does not imply causation, however, because in many cases, escalating conict may promote state reliance on repression, rather than the reverse. More research on this relationship is needed, but the link is there. Thus, it seems reasonable to suggest that concerned groups seek to curb governments appetite for repression. Oddly enough, however, there is also a problem with this recommendation, since some studies suggest that intermediate levels of state repression increase the risk of internal conict. Statistically, semi -repressive regimes have a higher risk of political violence and internal conict, perhaps because their tactics are too harsh to permit debate, but too weak to denitively quash insurgency.91 Recent research also suggests that, depending on circumstances, repression may trigger escalation by enraging the opposition, but that a lack of repression may also lead to escalation by demonstrating government weakness.92 Therefore, it is sobering to think that international human rights advocates may in some cases promote the worst of all possible outcomes, providing just enough protection for dissidents to challenge the state, but not enough to prevent repression and escalation.

Human rights violations cause conflicts increase risk and escalation

Rost 11 (Nicolas Rost, Coordination Officer in the Office of the UN Special Coordinator for the Middle
East Peace Process (UNSCO) and UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs for Somalia (OCHA). Human Rights Violations, Weak States, and Civil War Springer, 1 March 2011, http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs12142-011-0196-9.pdf)

In the past two decades, quantitative human rights research has proliferated considerably. Typically, the vast amount of these studies has tried to explain under what conditions human rights violations occur. Six factors have consistently been found to influence the level of violations of personal integrity rights (Poe and Tate 1994; Poe et al. 1999): past repression (Davenport 1995; Richards et al. 2001), democracy (Henderson 1991; Fein 1995; Rummel 1994, 1995; Davenport 1995, 2004; Zanger 2000; Regan and Henderson 2002; Harff 2003; Davenport and Armstrong 2004; Valentino et al. 2004; Easterly et al. 2006; Eck and Hultman 2007; Colaresi and Carey 2008), the level of economic development (Mitchell and McCormick 1988; Carey 2004; Besanon 2005), population size (Henderson 1993; Carey 2004), international war, and civil war (Krain 1997; Zanger 2000; Harff 2003; Wayman and Tago 2009). In the reverse, repression also seems to be linked with an increased risk of violent conflict in following years. Numerous studies in the civil war literature have found that state suppression of

political rights and civil liberties, instead of deterring rebellions, often helps to provoke uprisings (Gurr 1970; Tilly 1978; Muller 1985; Muller and Seligson 1987; Muller and
Weede 1990; Boswell and Dixon 1990; Schock 1996). Studies focusing on ethnic rebellion and discrimination have confirmed this relationship (Gurr and Moore 1997; Goldstone et al. 2000:35). The

same may be true for violations of personal integrity rights. Indiscriminate repression sometimes backfires and leads to an escalation of the conflict. This is not
always the case; otherwise, governments would not use repression. In some cases, governments use repression successfully, at least in the short run (from their point of view). Lichbach (1987) argues that

opposition movements respond to government oppression by switching to alternative strategies. Gupta et al. (1993) find that the effects of government sanctions vary with
the regime type of the country (see also Moore 1998). Clearly, the process leading to war is complex. Opposition groups, the government, and the general population interact over an extended period of time before it comes to a civil war. For example, in the 1980s, Somali President Siad Barre responded to the emergence of an armed independence movement in Somaliland by employing his secret services, which arbitrarily detained, tortured, or murdered hundreds of Issaq civilians [] Government forces poisoned wells and slaughtered the livestock rural Issaq depended on for their livelihoods (Human Rights Watch 2009). While in Somalia, full-blown civil war occurred, this does not always have to be the case. In the Central African Republic, the army was responsible for numerous rights violations in the north of the country, where hundreds of civilians were summarily executed and many thousands of homes were burned, typically in the context of counter-insurgency operations against anti-government groups (Human Rights Watch 2008). Still, since 2002, ongoing conflict has not reached the level of a civil war. A few studies try to describe the strategic interaction between the government and an opposition group that takes place before a civil war starts. Mason and Krane (1989) develop a rational choice model that lays out how repression can create a conflict spiral and drive civilians into joining the rebels. According to their argument, as a government reverts to indiscriminate repression, civilians are no longer safe by staying neutral and become more likely to join a rebel group in search for protection from government persecution. There is simply No Other Way Out for civilians (Goodwin 2001). Governments use indiscriminate repression when they do not have the institutional machinery, redistributable resources, and political inclination to accommodate opposition demands (Mason and Krane 1989:184). Pierskalla (2010) develops a strategic game to illustrate how under certain conditionsincomplete information or a third-party threat, such as from the military government repression can lead to an escalation from conflict to full-blown civil war. Semi-democratic regimes, which are neither fully authoritarian nor democratic but mix elements of both, should also be at a higher risk of experiencing civil war onset following government repression, according to his model. Below, I discuss that it is not only the

interaction between repression and politically unstable and weak regimes that increases the risk of civil war onset, but the interaction between repression and many aspects of state weakness. Violence, of course, is not only used by the government during the escalating process leading to civil war. Weinstein (2005, 2007) finds that rebel groups that rely on resource rents, and therefore less on the support of the population, are more likely to use indiscriminate violence against civilians. Bueno de Mesquita (2010) shows in a game-theoretical model that terrorist groups may have an interest in using violence to recruit new members. Kalyvas (2006) and Wood (2010) examine the use of violence by both government and rebel groups during, rather than before, civil war. In a detailed study of the Greek civil war, Kalyvas (2006), similar to Mason and Krane (1989), finds that, in situations of indiscriminate repression, particularly if used by both sides, it may be beneficial for civilians to join either side, rather than to remain neutral, as people who stay neutral are at a higher risk of experiencing indiscriminate repression. Members of armed groups have privileged access to information, are trained on how to react when arrested or interrogated, receive protection and support from their organizations, and will often be more careful in avoiding contact with members of the opponent group. Wood (2010) examines how both rebels and the government use repression against civilians strategically. Weak rebel groups that cannot provide selective incentives to their members are more likely to use violence to recruit civilians into their ranks. As long as rebels are strong enough to provide some protection to civilians, indiscriminate government violence helps them overcome the collective action problem and reduces their reliance on violence and selective incentives. Building on this body of literature, I propose that there are two ways in which indiscriminate repression is linked to the risk of civil war onset: first,

human rights violations cause an increase in the risk of civil war onset; second, repression is part of the escalating process that may lead to civil war,
and thereby constitutes an early warning sign of an increased risk of war.

Human rights violations cause a conflicts-right loss cycle spirals out of control
Maiese 3 (Michelle Maiese, Associate Professor of Philosophy at Emmanuel College, Ph.D. in
Philosophy, M.A., University of Colorado; B.A., Northwestern University. Human Rights Violations University of Colorado, July 2003, http://www.beyondintractability.org/bi-essay/human-rights-violations) Many have noted the strong interdependence between human rights violations and intractable conflict.

Abuse of human rights often leads to conflict, and conflict typically results in human rights violations. It is not surprising, then, that human rights abuses are often at the center of wars and that protection of human rights is central to conflict resolution.[20] Violations of political and economic rights are the root causes of many crises. When rights to adequate food, housing, employment, and cultural life are denied, and large groups of people are excluded from the society's decision-making processes, there is likely to be great social unrest. Such conditions often give rise to justice conflicts, in which parties demand that their basic
needs be met. Indeed, many conflicts are sparked or spread by violations of human rights. For example,

massacres or torture may inflame hatred and strengthen an adversary's determination to continue fighting. Violations may also lead to further violence from the other side and can contribute to a conflict's spiraling out of control. On the flip side, armed conflict often leads to the breakdown of infrastructure and civic institutions, which in turn undermines a broad range of rights. When hospitals and schools are closed,

rights to adequate health and education are threatened. The collapse of economic infrastructure often results in pollution, food shortages, and overall poverty.[21] These various forms of economic breakdown and oppression violate rights to self-determination and often contribute to further human tragedy in the form of sickness, starvation, and lack of basic shelter. The breakdown of government institutions results in denials of civil rights, including the rights to privacy, fair trial, and freedom of movement. In many cases, the government is increasingly militarized, and police and judicial systems are corrupted. Abductions, arbitrary arrests, detentions without trial, political executions, assassinations, and torture often follow. In

cases where extreme violations of human rights have occurred, reconciliation and peacebuilding become much more difficult. Unresolved human rights issues can serve as obstacles to peace negotiations.[22] This is because it is difficult for parties to
move toward conflict transformation and forgiveness when memories of severe violence and atrocity are still primary in their minds.

Torture/K Advantage

Narrative
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/opinion/hunger-striking-at-guantanamo-bay.html?_r=2& ONE man here weighs just 77 pounds. Another, 98. Last thing I knew, I weighed 132, but that was a month ago. Ive been on a hunger strike since Feb. 10 and have lost well over 30 pounds. I will not eat until they restore my dignity. Ive been detained at Guantnamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial. I could have been home years ago no one seriously thinks I am a threat but still I am here. Years ago the military said I was a guard for Osama bin Laden, but this was nonsense, like something out of the American movies I used to watch. They dont even seem to believe it anymore. But they dont seem to care how long I sit here, either. When I was at home in Yemen, in 2000, a childhood friend told me that in Afghanistan I could do better than the $50 a month I earned in a factory, and support my family. Id never really traveled, and knew nothing about Afghanistan, but I gave it a try. I was wrong to trust him. There was no work. I wanted to leave, but had no money to fly home. After the American invasion in 2001, I fled to Pakistan like everyone else. The Pakistanis arrested me when I asked to see someone from the Yemeni Embassy. I was then sent to Kandahar, and put on the first plane to Gitmo. Last month, on March 15, I was sick in the prison hospital and refused to be fed. A team from the E.R.F. (Extreme Reaction Force), a squad of eight military police officers in riot gear, burst in. They tied my hands and feet to the bed. They forcibly inserted an IV into my hand. I spent 26 hours in this state, tied to the bed. During this time I was not permitted to go to the toilet. They inserted a catheter, which was painful, degrading and unnecessary. I was not even permitted to pray. I will never forget the first time they passed the feeding tube up my nose. I cant describe how painful it is to be force-fed this way. As it was thrust in, it made me feel like throwing up. I wanted to vomit, but I couldnt. There was agony in my chest, throat and stomach. I had never experienced such pain before. I would not wish this cruel punishment upon anyone. I am still being force-fed. Two times a day they tie me to a chair in my cell. My arms, legs and head are strapped down. I never know when they will come. Sometimes they come during the night, as late as 11 p.m., when Im sleeping. There are so many of us on hunger strike now that there arent enough qualified medical staff members to carry out the force-feedings; nothing is happening at regular intervals. They are feeding people around the clock just to keep up. During one force-feeding the nurse pushed the tube about 18 inches into my stomach, hurting me more than usual, because she was doing things so hastily. I called the interpreter to ask the doctor if the procedure was being done correctly or not.

It was so painful that I begged them to stop feeding me. The nurse refused to stop feeding me. As they were finishing, some of the food spilled on my clothes. I asked them to change my clothes, but the guard refused to allow me to hold on to this last shred of my dignity. When they come to force me into the chair, if I refuse to be tied up, they call the E.R.F. team. So I have a choice. Either I can exercise my right to protest my detention, and be beaten up, or I can submit to painful force-feeding. The only reason I am still here is that President Obama refuses to send any detainees back to Yemen. This makes no sense. I am a human being, not a passport, and I deserve to be treated like one. I do not want to die here, but until President Obama and Yemens president do something, that is what I risk every day. Where is my government? I will submit to any security measures they want in order to go home, even though they are totally unnecessary. I will agree to whatever it takes in order to be free. I am now 35. All I want is to see my family again and to start a family of my own. The situation is desperate now. All of the detainees here are suffering deeply. At least 40 people here are on a hunger strike. People are fainting with exhaustion every day. I have vomited blood. And there is no end in sight to our imprisonment. Denying ourselves food and risking death every day is the choice we have made. I just hope that because of the pain we are suffering, the eyes of the world will once again look to Guantnamo before it is too late.

Torture Now
The US chose Guantanamo to push limits if it doesnt stop now theyll just push it farther
CCR 6 (Center for Constitutional Rights. REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, AND
DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTNAMO BAY, CUBA. Center for Constitutional Rights July 2006. Web.) http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf The extreme interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at Abu Ghraib

were designed and implemented first at Guantnamo and then exported to Iraq.40 The government deliberately chose Guantnamo as its prison site because it believed foreign citizens detained there stood beyond the reach of U.S. law, including U.S. international obligations under the Geneva Conventions and other international humanitarian and human rights law. The U.S. government calculated that, at Guantnamo, a prisoner would have no remedy to contest his incarceration in U.S. courts.41 Legal memoranda from 2002 reveal that the White House and the DoD wanted to know how far they could legally go in interrogating alleged terrorists.42 Guantnamo was the perfect location to test these limits.

These practices will continue unless action is taken US refuses to take blame
CCR 6 (Center for Constitutional Rights. REPORT ON TORTURE AND CRUEL, INHUMAN, AND
DEGRADING TREATMENT OF PRISONERS AT GUANTNAMO BAY, CUBA. Center for Constitutional Rights July 2006. Web.) http://ccrjustice.org/files/Report_ReportOnTorture.pdf

The U.S. government has steadfastly declared that the prisoners in Guantnamo are treated humanely, that any isolated incidents of abuse occurred long ago, and the individual soldiers involved reprimanded. The government points to the fact that none of the investigations undertaken so far found that any governmental policy directed, encouraged or condoned these abuses.231The governments selfserving reliance on the conclusions of its own investigations highlights the urgent need for an independent investigation of prisoner treatment and conditions of confinement. The U.S. government has failed to provide the prisoners with any means to address and remedy their allegations of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment . Neither the military proceedings in Guantnamo nor the federal courts in the United States have held the U.S. government accountable for the conduct in Guantnamo or prohibited these practices. As the prisoners enter their fifth year of
detention, not a single federal habeas hearing has been held to challenge a prisoners enemy combatant status, and mistreatment in Guantnamo and continued arbitrary confinement.

The US is more focused on individual interests than ending torture full removal is key
Wright-Smith no date (Kali Wright-Smith, political science degree from Purdue University.
Talking About Torture: US Discourse and the Case of Guantanamo Bay. Academia no date. Web.) http://www.academia.edu/243358/Talking_About_Torture_U.S._Discourse_and_the_Case_of_Guantana mo_Bay EW Despite ratification of the CAT, it is clear from reports of abuse that the U.S did not base all of its actions on shared values. From the inception of Guantanamo Bay, multiple allegations of torture arose from past detainees and human rights organizations. A 2002 Washington Post article claimed that the U.S. used "stress and duress techniques" including prolonged isolation, sleep deprivation, and hours of forced standing. 18 In 2008, after years of reports of

torture, the Bush Administration admitted to the repeated use of interrogation tactics like waterboarding. 19 It also gained information from illegal
interrogations, failed to prosecute perpetrators of ill-treatment and torture, and purposively engaged in rendition to countries where torture is practiced. 20 Finally, consistent refusal to permit UN monitoring bodies

full access to Guantanamo

indicates that the U.S. was primarily

focused on narrow domestic interests.

Spillover Link
Torture is more likely to be accepted if carried out by the government, leads to spillover
Crandall et al 8 (Christian S. Crandall, University of Kansas, Lawrence. Scott Eidelman, University
of Maine, Orono. Linda J. Skitka and G Scott Morgan, University of Illinois, Chicago. Status quo framing increases support for torture. Psychology Press 2008. Web.) http://www.uic.edu/labs/skitka/public_html/Torture.pdf We test the power of status quo bias in the context of a significant and current debate, the use of torture in the gathering of information from detainees. Interrogation practices at Abu Ghraib were made public by Seymour Hersh (2004), which involved humiliation, sleep deprivation, waterboarding (simulated drowning), hanging detainees by ropes in painful positions, threats by dogs, and sexual humiliation. A significant debate evolved in the USA and around the world

as to whether these practices were unique to Abu Ghraib, or if the USA and its agents had used these techniques before (e.g., Phoenix program in Vietnam, in Central
and South American conflicts from the 1950s to the 1980s) or since (e.g., at the Guantanamo Bay detention camp). Americans do not favor torture as a general tactic, and the public response to the report of conditions at Abu Ghraib was primarily of shock and disgust (Friedman, 2004; McKelvey, 2007). But once governmental elites have chosen a

particular policy, people are often interested in making this choice seem acceptable, reasonable, or inevitable (Tavris & Aronson, 2007). We tested whether
characterizing the practice of torture of prisoners of war or criminal suspects would enhance the acceptability of the practice. If long-standing practices are simply understood to

be good, then description of torture as part of the status quo should make it seem more acceptable. We tested this hypothesis using a representative sample of U.S. adults.

Guantanamo Bay makes terrorism more likely

Postel 13 (Thrse Postel is a policy associate in international affairs at The Century Foundation. How
Guantanamo Bay's Existence Helps Al-Qaeda Recruit More Terrorists. The Atlantic 12 April 2013. Web.) http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/how-guantanamo-bays-existence-helpsal-qaeda-recruit-more-terrorists/274956/ EW

The constant refrain about Guantanamo Bay may be inspiring jihadist action. Anwar al-Awlaki issued a lecture discussing the plight of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay before his death by drone strike in 2011. Awlaki's lectures still play an important role in recruiting impressionable individuals to jihad. As we know, Fort
Hood shooter Nidal Hassan was impressed by Awlaki's message and was encouraged (although not directed) to carry out an attack on the states by the cleric himself. The ramifications of the indefinite nature of Guantanamo have not been lost on American military and policymakers, either. Air Force Officer Matthew Alexander, who was in charge of an interrogation team in Iraq, states that many of his subjects mentioned Guantanamo

in

their discussions and that it remains a strong recruitment tool. Not only does it aid recruitment, but in Alexander's words, "the longer it stays open the more cost it will have in U.S. lives." John Brennan, now director of the Central Intelligence Agency, echoed Alexander's words just less than two years ago: "The prison at Guantnamo Bay undermines our national security, and our nation will be more secure the day when that prison is finally and responsibly closed."

Allowing torture in a single instance justifies spill-over into other instances

Hart no date (Walter Hart, sociology student at Texas A&M. The Normalization and Justification of
the Bush Torture Policies. Academia no date. Web.) http://www.academia.edu/445592/From_Geneva_to_Abu_Ghraib_The_Normalization_and_Justification_ of_the_Bush_Torture_Policies EW In an attempt to answer the third question, I will show how the Bush administration

successfully scapegoated the individual soldiers and argued the morality/utility and legality of torture in order to create the appearance of justice, evade responsibility, and to continue to justify its policy decisions in the war on terror. Moving forward, I will attempt to connect the relationship between the rhetoric
of the Bush administration, public opinion concerning torture, and the news medias coverage of Abu Ghraib scandal. The relationship between rhetoric, public opinion, and the media will be used to understand why the Bush administration was able to implement its torture 7 policies and minimize the legal effects in the aftermath. The attorneys of the court-martialed soldiers argued

that the defendants should not be held responsible for the abuse of detainees because their actions stemmed from policies implemented by the Bush administration. Those policies migrated from Guantanamo and Afghanistan to Abu Ghraib where they contributed to a dysfunctional environment that normalized abuse and provided the opportunity for such abuse to occur and to continue undiscovered by higher authority for a long period of time. (Fay 2004, 71) The
defenses expert witness Stjepan G. Mestrovic described the dynamics of the trial in his 2007 book, The Trials of Abu Ghraib: An Expert Witness Account of Shame and Honor: The defense teams tried,

and failed, to get high-ranking officers, and even the secretary of defense to testify. For the most part, the defense teams were putting the Army on trial the government seemed
guilty, in part for the unlawful policies and chaos that were established at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, yet the government was going through the rituals of justice and assigning blame onto its lowest-ranking soldiers. (Mestrovic 2007, 18)

War on Terror Bad

Framing extremists as terrorists or jihadists spurs more violent attacks and anti-American feelings
Allegra Stratton, Political editor on BBC Two's Newsnight programme, political correspondent at The Guardian newspaper, 4/25/13, Terror talk: No more Islamist jihads, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/25/terror.language With less than a year left in office, the Bush administration is rewriting its "war on terror" lexicon.

Documents obtained by the Associated Press news agency show officials in federal agencies have been asked not to use the terms jihadists and mujahideen, describe al-Qaida as a movement, or refer to Islamo-fascism. Staff
of the state department, homeland security department and national counterterrorism centre, as well as diplomats and other officials, have been told that various words in common use may

actually boost support for extremists among Arab and Muslim audiences by giving them a veneer of religious credibility or causing offence to moderates.
The new guidance explains that while Americans may understand jihad to mean holy war, it is in fact a broader Islamic concept of the struggle to do good. Similarly, mujahideen, which means those engaged in jihad, must be seen in its broader context. US officials may be "unintentionally

portraying terrorists, who lack moral and religious legitimacy, as brave fighters, legitimate soldiers or spokesmen for ordinary Muslims". A homeland security report, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims, said: "Regarding jihad, even if it is accurate to reference the term, it may not be strategic because it glamorises terrorism, imbues terrorists with religious authority they do not have and damages relations with Muslims around the world." Language is critical in fighting terror, says
another document, an internal "official use only" memorandum circulating through Washington titled Words that Work and Words that Don't: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication. The memo, originally prepared in March by the extremist messaging branch at the national counterterrorism centre, was approved for diplomatic use this week by the state department, which officials said would be distributing a version to all US embassies. "It's not what you say, but what they hear," the memo says in bold italic lettering, listing 14 points about how to improve the presentation of the anti-terror campaign. "Don't take the bait," it says, urging officials not to react when Osama bin Laden or al-Qaida

affiliates speak. "We should offer only minimal, if any, response to their messages. When we respond loudly, we raise their prestige in the Muslim world."

The War on Terror only dehumanizes people and creates more violence
Judith Butler, She is a professor in the Rhetoric and Comparative Literature departments at the University of California, Berkeley, PhD in philosophy from Yale University, April 1 2002, Guantanamo Limbo, found in the April 1, 2002 issue of The Nation, http://www.merveunsal.com/try/guantanamo-limbo.html

Just as a distinction is drawn between legitimate violence and illegitimate violence according to whether the combatants are affiliated with states, various forms of political violence are now commonly called terrorism, not because there are distinguishable valences of violence, but

as a way of delegitimizing violence waged by, or in the name of, authorities deemed illegitimate by established states or, indeed, those that threaten the hegemony of the nation-state itself. As a result, we have the sweeping dismissal of the
Palestinian intifada as terrorism by Ariel Sharon, whose use of state violence to destroy homes and lives is surely extreme. The use of the term terrorism thus works to delegitimize certain forms of violence committed by non-state-centered political entities at the same time that it sanctions a violent response by established states. Obviously, this has been a tactic for a long time, as colonial states have dealt with the Palestinians and with the Irish, and it was as well a case made against the African National Congress. But the new form that this kind of argument is taking, and the naturalized status it assumes, will only intensify the enormously damaging consequences of the struggle for Palestinian self-determination. Israel takes advantage of this formulation by justifying state violence against the Palestinians in the name of an infinitely expansive conception of self-defense. So terrorism becomes the name to describe the violence waged by the illegitimate, whereas legal war becomes the prerogative of those who can assume international recognition as legitimate states. In the current war, US soldiers would be

covered by the Geneva Conventions and US POWs would be guaranteed POW status, but those they fight, deemed illegitimate, would have no legal recourse to those same protections. (Indeed, the very fact that Bush subjected this policy to
review appeared to stem from a fear that US soldiers might also be summarily deprived of the same protections on foreign soil.) Although the Geneva Conventions might be more openly interpreted if they were reconvened
to consider these questions (and why shouldnt they be?), they currently serve to reinforce the distinction between legitimat e state violence and illegitimate violence waged by the stateless. One surely needs to feel no sympathy with Al Qaeda to worry about the long-term international consequences of this distinction. In turn, the distinction between state-sanctioned violence and illegitimate violence or unlawful combat becomes the basis for the distinction between state violence and terrorism or, in the case of states whose legitimacy is in question, state terrorism (as the Russians have tried to impute to Chechnya). In this regard, it could be said that the stateless are terrorized by the distinction between state violence and terrorism. The terrorists are

considered to be outside the law, to sanction treatment that is outside the law because of the character of their violence. The fact that these prisoners are seen as pure vessels of violence, as Rumsfeld claimed, suggests that they do not become violent for the same kinds of reasons that other politicized beings do, that their turn to violence can make no sense historically, or cannot make sense in the way that conventional wars make sense, and that their violence is somehow groundless and infinite, if not innate or constitutive. If this is terrorism rather than violence, it is action that has no political goal, or cannot be understood politically. It emerges, as they say, from fanatics, extremists who do not espouse a point of view and do not have a part in the human community. But even as Rumsfeld characterizes

the prisoners in Guantnamo as individuals who will kill again if they are not detained, imagining them as capable of an infinite violence, the US war has also established its own relation to infinity, since it is unclear how a generalized war on terrorismwith all the vagueness that impliescan ever properly end. That the violence of the prisoners is associated with Islamic extremism or terrorism suggests that these prisoners are already cast outside the bounds of civilization, and that the dehumanization that Orientalism already performs is heightened now to an extreme, so that the uniqueness of this kind of

war makes the humane treatment of prisoners, as stipulated by international convention, exempt from the presumptions and protections of universality and civilization alike. The question of who will be

treated humanely presupposes that we have first settled the question of who does and does not count as a human. And this is where the debate about Western civilization
and Islam is not merely an academic debate, a misbegotten pursuit of Orientalism by the likes of Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington, although they do exemplify how notions of civilization produce the human differentially. To what extent does the nation-state operate as the basis for our notions of what is human? And does the Geneva Convention encode this expectation that humans, as we know and honor them under the law, belong primarily to nation-states? It is not just that some humans are

treated as humans, and others are dehumanized; it is rather that dehumanizationtreating some humans as outside the scope of the law becomes one tactic by which a putatively distinct Western civilization seeks to define itself over and against a population understood as, by definition, illegitimate?
Americas current efforts in the war on terror to preserve and spread freedom and democracy fail and only destroy these values Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf Production and organization of freedom. Production and limitation of it, in consequence. It is here, then, at the level of the freedoms production costs, where the notion that unfailingly accompanies it comes into play: security. It is a macro security framework that permits that the societys vital process in the whole unfolds with a minimum of obstacles. And, thus, another fundamental notion of liberal government as understood by Foucault enters the game: the notion of danger. The game between freedom and security functions, indeed, in connection with it: it is about the prevention of danger. That is what explains the formidable extension of control and coercion procedures that Foucault detects as counterbalance of freedomand that he groups under the name of disciplinary techniques. This is the repressive side of control, but it does not function only this way; instead, control and intervention are used to increment freedom.

The USFG uses the war on terror and a racist ideology to justify its right to exterminate those who do not share American values Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf We have established that racism is the only mechanism that gives the possibility to bio-power to exert the sovereign right of killing. This mechanism entails two functions: On the one hand, the function of fragmentation through which the biological realm is divided in two elds, one that must live and one that must die; on the other hand, the function that not only kills in order to live, but to improve the own life. In this sense, the last quote is really meaningful. The GWT was a new world framework that permitted the emergence of the US sovereign power; that is to say, the power to determine who could live and who must die: the power to kill. It exerted this power through a racist mechanism that, we have argued, was a cultural one. In this sense, in the rst place, the administration established a fragmentation of the world between those who had to live and those who had to die. Indeed, in the famous statement

that later became known as the Bush doctrine -either you are with us or you are with the terrorists-, what was established was a world division between those who had to live (us) and those who had to die (Islamic17 terrorists and those who provided them help or refuge). Indeed, in Schmitts terms, the terrorist enemy was not constructed as a political enemy but as an absolute one (1966). This gave the possibility to carry out an extermination policy of those who were not with us. When democracy entered the game, this bipolarity became a cultural one. Now, the dichotomy passed through the form of socio-political organization. The world was divided, thus, into the free/democratic world and the non-democratic world18. The latter was compelled through force or diplomatic pressure to change. If democracy was a Gods gift to humanity, then it was almost naturalized. It was presented as a historical necessity, without regard to particularities. This is how fragmentation was established based on the assumption that there was a system (democracy) that was natural (that is, non particular, universal) and, hence, had to live.

The war on terror undermines democracy and is an attempt to exercise global control
Slaughter and Hale, May 25 2005, Anne-Marie Slaughter is dean of the Woodrow Wilson School
of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. Thomas N Hale is special assistant to the Dean at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Hardt & Negri's 'Multitude': the worst of both worlds, http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalizationvision_reflections/marx_2549.jsp, DS) Contra the Bush administration, Multitude holds the global war on terror to be a central obstacle to democracy. While neo-conservatives have conflated counterterrorism with democracy promotion, Hardt & Negri have done just the opposite, seeing most counterterrorism policy as anti-democratic. The authors see US-led efforts as

dangerous to civil liberties within nations and oppressive to the people who find themselves in countries on the wrong side the good vs evil divide. But what
does the war on terror have to do with economic globalisation? Certainly self-described global justice activists have been quick to add the war in Iraq to their list of complaints against the existing world order. Protestors have seen little need to provide a coherent intellectual framework for both causes, and when called upon to do so frequently resort to the facile blood for oil argument, which views the war on terror as a plan to pacify the world for capitalist exploitation. Hardt & Negri toy with this idea, but fortunately do not go so far as to endorse it fully. Rather, they suggest a more subtle and compelling linkage. The authors never quite state the point explicitly, but they connect resistance to neo-liberal

globalisation and opposition to the American-led war on terror by looking at both through the prism of transnational democracy. In their view both movements are
motivated by peoples desire to have a say over decisions that affect the world in which they live. People around the world feel helpless when decisions made at the International Monetary Fund or in the boardrooms of large corporations affect their ability to work or provide for their families. They feel similarly disenfranchised when a single country and a few of its allies decide to intervene militarily absent multilateral authorisation or a compelling rationale. In this way both anti-globalisation and

anti-war protests are exercises in democracy an attempt to have ones say at the transnational level.

The War on Terror destroys Human Rights

Denike 8

(Margaret Denike is an Associate Professor of political theory in the Department of Political Science, and the Coordinator of the Law and Society Progra m. She holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Thought (York), an LL.M. in Law (Queens), and an M.A. (UBC) and B.A. (Simon Fraser Un iversity) in English and Humanities. Formerly a professor and program coordinator in Gender Studies and of International Human Rights, her teaching, research and writing cover topics such as theories of human rights; feminist and queer philosophies; the political activism of sexual and racial minorities; constitutional equality jurisprudence; state-sanctioned discrimination and persecution; biopolitics and genealogical inquiry; and the politics of terror and security. Hypatia, Volume 23, Number 2, Spring 2008, pp. 95-121 (Article))

This shady dealings of humanitarian narratives have huge consequences for what human rights may or may not promise humanity, as is evident in the extensively documented accounts of how their deployment has worked to cancel t he very gains of the progressive universal human rights movement in seemingly irreversible

). Deploying human rights to substantiate public violence and to impose a privatized economic orderas with the war on terrorhas a lasting effect on human rights, not merely because armed conflict is in itself a leading cause of systemic human rights abuses against which NGOs need to continue to act, but because, in its nefarious moralism and principled self-justifications, this war, leveraged by a fear of the (Muslim, Arab) other and a concern for the rights of humanity, conscripts the language of human rights and humanitarian causes to substantiate daily civilian atrocities and exceptional measures of racial profiling, security arrest warrants, indefinite detentions, torture, deportation, and so on, and in effect, invariably limits what human rights and humanitarian concerns
ways . . . to mute the voices of suffering and, in the process, regress human rights futures (Baxi 1998, 16869 can and do mean, particularly for those vast sectors of humanity that are not counted as human and that have engaged generations of strugg les to obtain them.

draconian racist policies that systemically deny human rights to target groups that symbolize its cause (for instance, the refugees of oppressive regimes), particularly to Arab and Muslim alien immigrants and residents of Middle Eastern countries;17 for justifying military attacks and occupations that are conducted in the
This leveraging is done through name of abstract Western values (democracy, equality, freedom, security, and liberty) against so-called rogue states (Bush 2002a) or failed states (Ignatieff 2002) that are said to have none. Such policies and practices conducted in the name of human rights make a mockery of the notion that human rights ideals express one long and steady march towards progress (Kapur 2006, 673), as the call to respond to images of suffering in distant lands, is far less interested in admitting those who suffer as refugees than it is in intervening militarily to prevent their exodus (Orford 2003, 203).

Human Rights Violations spillover and affect all minorities

Denike 8
(Margaret Denike is an Associate Professor of political theory in the Department of Political Science, and the Coordinator of the Law and Society Program. She holds a Ph.D. in Social and Political Thought (York), an LL.M. in Law (Queens), and an M.A. (UBC) and B.A. (Simon Fraser Universit y) in English and Humanities. Formerly a professor and program coordinator in Gender Studies and of International Human Rights, her teaching, research and writing cover topics such as theories of human rights; feminist and queer philosophies; the political activism of sexual and racial minorities; constitutional equality jurisprudence; state-sanctioned discrimination and persecution; biopolitics and genealogical inquiry; and the politics of terror and security. Hypatia, Volume 23, Number 2, Spring 2008, pp. 95-121 (Article))

The politics of sexual, racial, and ethnic differenceand hence of the equality, security, and freedom that are at stake for minoritiesare central to this dynamic. A consideration of the stock figuresfirst, of the oppressed female human rights victim, and second, of the male tyrannical terroristthat appear in the narratives and
substantiate policies of this war, enables us to elucidate these politics within its various techniques and tactics (from security arrest warrants and deportations of immigrants to armed invasions) and to link the fear of the other to the new sovereignty of the United States, that looks nothing like Kofi

Anans vision of individuals being empowered to hold states accountable for human rights abuses, but rather a sovereignty of corporate defensive imperialism (Anghie 2004, 294) and

nation-state patriotism masquerading as the causes of democracy and freedom, while perpetrating systematic human rights violations. Part and parcel of the sovereignty-creating, colonizing tactics are those that constitute and entrench gender norms within and across national boundaries, preserving as a model of masculinity its roles of uniformed masculine saviors whose heroism inheres in saving helpless female victims from racialized and demonized incarnations of evil

The Continuation of Terror Talk allows unjustified violence to anyone labeled as a terrorist--- Gitmo is a major example
Said 02 (Edward, Professor at Columbia University, Punishment by Detail, Counterpunch,
http://www.counterpunch.org/2002/08/13/punishment-by-detail/, TS)

security is now a fabled beast. Like a unicorn it is endlessly hunted and never found, remaining, everlastingly, the goal of future action. That over time Israel has
Israeli become less secure and more unacceptable to its neighbours scarcely merits a moments notice. But then who challenges the view that Israeli security ought to define the moral world we live in? Certainly not the Arab and Palestinian leaderships who for 30 years ha ve conceded everything to Israeli security. Shouldnt that ever be questioned, given that Israel has wreaked more damage on the Palestinians and other Arabs relative to its size than any country in the world, Israel with its nuclear

what Palestinians have to live through are hidden and, more important, covered over by a logic of self-defence and the pursuit of terrorism (terrorist infrastructure, terrorist nests, terrorist bomb factories, terrorist suspects the list is infinite) which perfectly suits Sharon and the lamentable George Bush. Ideas about terrorism have thus taken on a life of their own, legitimised and re- legitimised without proof, logic or rational argument.
arsenal, its air force, navy, and army limitlessly supplied by the US taxpayer? As a result the daily, minute occurrences of Consider for instance the devastation of Afghanistan, on the one hand, and the targeted assassinations of almost 100 Palest inians (to say nothing of many thousands

nobody asks whether all these people killed were in fact terrorists, or proved to be terrorists, or were about to become terrorists. They are all assumed to be dangers by acts of simple, unchallenged affirmation. All you need is an arrogant spokesman or two, like the loutish Ranaan Gissin, Avi Pazner, or Dore Gold, and in Washington a non-stop apologist for ignorance and incoherence like Ari Fleisher, and the targets in question are just as good as dead. Without doubts, questions, or demurral. No need for proof or any such tiresome delicacy. Terrorism and its obsessive pursuit have become an entirely circular, self-fulfilling murder and slow death of enemies who have no choice or say in the matter.
of suspects rounded- up and still imprisoned by Israeli soldiers) on the other:

Gitmo Bad War on Terror

Guantanamos biopolitics otherizes religions and spurs the war on terror
Maria Egerstrom, 7-19-13, PhD student, American Civilization at Harvard University, After Biopolitics: Religion and Regime in Guantanamo Bay, http://citation.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/5/6/8/5/2/p568527_index.html DS)

At Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a new kind of prisoner has emerged in the figure of the detainee. This new character in the War on Terror is subject to new strategies, discourses of power, and conceptions of American sovereignty. Much
like Foucaults delinquent character, the character held indefinitely at Guantanamo, who is interrogated but never tried, is the figure of the Islamist Extremist. Through attention to the camps standard operating procedures and built environment, as well as to interrogation logs, court documents, and interviews with former detainees, this paper examines why, and how, religion is so central to the surveillance, discipline, and interrogation of Guantanamo detainees. The cell blocks of Guantanamo are an intensely religious space: the call to prayer is sounded five times a day, each cell has an arrow painted on the floor that points toward Mecca, the library is stocked with books on Islam, some of them very conservative, and the sinks in the cells are placed low to the ground to more easily facilitate wudu. The camp is designed, down to the plumbing, to not only hold Muslims captive, but to make captives Muslim. Indeed, former detainees, as well as American military personnel, have observed that many detainees werent particularly religious when they arrived at Guantanamo, but became so during their detention. Muslim religiosity in Guantanamo is always observed and constructed within, and in reference to, the mildly secularized Protestantism that is the normative paradigm for the American militarys understanding of Islam. It is within this discourse, too, that military personnel define the terms radical, Islamist, and extremist. The detention and interrogation procedures at Guantanamo function to make captives perform a set of resistance tactics that render detainees bodies and voices legible only as those of Islamist extremists. In a war that constructs threat in religious terms, Guantanamo must therefore be understood not as an end or a consequence of the War on Terror, but an active site of its production. Seen as such, the methods and processes by

which Guantanamo detainees are formed as religious subjects reveal Guantanamo as an experimental facility in producing a new, post-biopolitical discourse of religious terrorism which authorizes and demands the perpetual expansion of American sovereignty. This expansion reaches both inward, as seen in the new
provisions for indefinite detention of American citizens in the 2011 National Defense Authorization Act, as well as internationally, as seen in the establishment of CIA black sites around the world.

Gitmo Bad Torture

Guantanamos lawlessness spills over onto US soil
ACLU 10-8-08 American Civil Liberties Union, New Documents Reveal Unlawful Guantnamo
Procedures Were Also Applied On American Soil http://www.aclu.org/national-security/newdocuments-reveal-unlawful-guantanamo-procedures-were-also-applied-american-soi DS) NEW YORK According to newly released military documents, the Navy applied lawless

Guantnamo protocols in detention facilities on American soil. The documents, which include regular emails between brig officers and others in the chain of command, uncover new details of the detention and interrogation of two U.S. citizens and a legal resident Yaser Hamdi, Jose Padilla and Ali al-Marri at naval brigs in Virginia and South
Carolina. The documents were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act by the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights Clinic at Yale Law School and the American Civil Liberties Union. "Guantnamo was designed as a law-free zone, a place where the

government could do whatever it wanted without having to worry about whether it was legal," said Jonathan Freiman, an attorney with the Lowenstein Clinic at Yale. "It didn't take long for that sort of lawlessness to be brought home to our own country. Who knows how much further America would have gone if the Supreme Court hadn't stepped
in to stop incommunicado detentions in 2004?" According to the documents, Navy officers doubted the wisdom of applying Guantnamo rules on American soil. In particular, officers expressed grave concern over the effects of the solitary confinement imposed upon the three men detained at the brigs, a practice that was considered to be even more extreme than the isolation imposed at Guantnamo. Navy officers also exhibited frustration with the Defense Department's unwillingness to provide the detainees with access to legal counsel or any information about their fates. "The application of

Guantnamo protocols on U.S. soil is incredibly significant and indicates how far the administration has gone in terms of suspending the law," said Jonathan
Hafetz, a staff attorney with the ACLU National Security Project. "The Bush administration has long argued that detainees held in Guantnamo are not entitled to any constitutional protections an argument the Supreme Court has recently rejected. But this is not even Guantnamo we are talking about creating prisons beyond the law right here in America."

UN has condemned force-feeding as torture and inhumane

Warren 13 (Vince, executive director of the Center for Constitutional Rights, a nonprofit legal and
educational organization that works to protect rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. CCR represented clients in two Guantanamo Supreme Court cases and coordinates the work of hundreds of pro bono attorneys representing prisoners there, CNN publication, Stop force-feeding inmates and close Gitmo, May 10, http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/09/opinion/warren-gitmo-hunger-strike)

It has taken almost three months and more than 100 men embarking on a lifethreatening hunger strike for President Obama to remind himself and the nation why the prison at Guantanamo Bay needs to be closed. Self-starvation is excruciating, but as one
of our clients expressed, this is the only way the men at Guantanamo have left to tell the world what it

means to be unjustly detained without charge or trial for more than 11 years with no end in sight. The starvation protest, which began in February, has created headlines around the world. Of the 100 men, 23 are being force fed to keep them alive. As you read this, it's likely that some of the men are being dragged from their cells, strapped to restraint chairs, and a rubber tube inserted up their nose and into their stomachs to pump in liquid dietary supplement. One of the men described the traumatic experience to his attorney as having a razor blade go down through your nose and into your throat. Last week, 40 additional military medical personnel were sent to Guantanamo to assist with the force-feedings,

a practice that the American Medical Association condemned as a violation of "core ethical values of the medical profession" and the United Nations condemned as torture and a breach of international law. Force-feedings at
Guantanamo are nothing new, and much like indefinite detention, the practice has come to define the prison. In 2005, when the first mass hunger strike at the prison took place, the Bush administration also responded by having medical personnel force-feed the men. Back then the men were fighting for due process and access to attorneys; eight years later and with more than half the prison population cleared for release by the Obama administration itself, the men are asking for an end to their indefinite detention. As President Obama said last week, the prison is "not necessary to keep America safe. It's expensive, it's inefficient, it hurts us in terms of international standing, it lessens cooperation with our allies in counterterrorism efforts." It is also illegal and inhumane, as the United Nations' top independent human rights experts and the international human rights body with jurisdiction over the United States, the OAS's Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, reminded the president. I would like to believe that if the president could see what lawyers at my organization have witnessed during visits with our clients in the last few weeks, he would act without delay to make good on the promise he made to close Guantanamo Bay four years ago. The toll that starvation and the violence of force-feedings have taken on the men is painful to see. They have lost 30 to 40 pounds, they look skeletal, and many are losing consciousness and coughing up blood. Last we heard, one of our clients weighed 90 pounds.

Because of its cruel nature force feeding is a breach of international law

Reuters 13 (an international news agency headquartered in New York, United States, and a division of
Thomson Reuters. Until 2008, the Reuters news agency formed part of an independent company, Reuters Group plc, which was also a provider of financial market data. Reuters Editorial, UN calls force-feeding at Guantanamo 'torture' http://rt.com/news/guantanamo-prison-torture-un-677/) The UN human rights office has condemned force-feeding hunger strikers at Guantanamo Bay, calling it torture and a breach of international law. At least 21 inmates out of the 100 officially on strike are being force-fed through nasal tubes. "If it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment -and it's the case, it's painful -- then it is prohibited by international law," said Rupert Coville, spokesman for the UN high commissioner for human rights, AFP reported. The UN bases its position on that of the World Medical Association, which consists of 102 nations including the United States, Coville explained. The international organization, a watchdog for ethics in healthcare, said back in 1991 that forcible feeding is "a form of inhuman treatment" and never ethnically acceptable. "Even if intended to

benefit, feeding accompanied with threats, coercion, force or use of physical restraints is a form of inhuman and degrading treatment. Equally unacceptable is the force feeding of some detainees in order to intimidate or

coerce other hunger strikers to stop fasting," it said. According to the WMAs 1975 declaration, artificial feeding methods should never be used without a prisoner's permission. The prisoner has the right to refuse food if a physician considered the person able to rationally
take the decision, being aware of the consequences. If the person is unable to take the decision or agrees to the feeding then it can be used, says the WMA.

Gitmo Bad Biopower

The unjust detainment and killing of Guantanamo prisoners justifies more biopolitical actions by the USFG Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf What is the function of racism in the new technology of power? If biopower has the mandate of making live, if it has life as its object and objective, Foucault asks himself how does it exert the sovereign power, the power to kill. The answer is racism, inscribed in mechanisms of the state . Therefore, liberal discourse e ected a rewriting of the war of races discourse that substituted the historical war for a ght for life and a binary society for a biologically monistic society. At the same time, discourse about the unjust state is substituted for a state not considered as the instrument of one race against the other, but as the protector of the integrity, the superiority and the purity of the only one race: human race. Liberal humanitarianism is born. It is important to note that, understood this way racism appears not as an ideological question, but as a mechanism linked with a determined technology of power (biopolitics). It is what permits establishing a separation inside the realm of life (that is, in the realm that power has absorbed and put under its administration) between what can live and what must die. The distinction between races and its organization into a hierarchy is, thus, a manner of fragmenting the eld of the biological. In a few words, racism is the means of introducing a cut in the realm of life that power took in charge: the cut between what must live and what must die (Foucault, 2008: 230). This is understood by Foucault as the rst function of racism: the function of fragmentation. It is important to withhold this fact: the rst function of racism is the fragmentation of a realm that is understood as being biological and universal (thus, non political).

By framing the detainees as enemies of the sovereign, Guantanamo destroys all basic human rights and validates biopolitical manipulation and torture.
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) For Agamben, the central image (and producer) of life during a timeshrouded in the friend/enemy distinction is the concentration camp. The campis a no mans land between coma and death (Agamben, 1998, 161). The campcomes into existence as a political concept when the state of exception isnormalized. The camp is not a temporary camp, a displacement camp for refugees on

their way to someplace else, but a

permanent feature of the modernworld, modern politics, and of modern thought (Agamben, 1998, 174). It is a place to house the zoes of the
world (Agamben notes that in Greek, zoe has no plural; 1998, 1). Because it houses the exceptional, it is a space of exception.When Heinrich Himmler created a concentration camp for political prisoners,Agamben writes, he placed it outside the rules of penal and prison law(Agamben, 1998, 169). With the construction of prison camps in Guantnamoas places outside

the law, the exception once again becomes the norm.Because the exception has taken over for the norm such that the two areindistinguishable (Agamben, 1998, 170), the camp is the realization of thenormality of the exception. Guantnamo as a liminal space is the natural placefor those held captive in the war on terror because those it holds do not valuelife. The inhabitants of the camp are those who have been
denationalized,stripped of their political status, and deprived of their rights and prerogatives (Agamben, 1998, 171) to the Child).

such an extent that

any harm committedagainst them no longer

appears as a crime (Bybee, 2002; Savage, 2010;Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of

Theinhabitants of the camps are zoe as such . They are the remnants of the activelife, made bare by their status as enemies of the sovereign. For Agamben,
thecreation of the friend/enemy distinction no longer relies on law (if it ever did).Rather, following Foucault, Agamben posits the creation of the zoe as an aspectof the onset of biopolitics. Biopolitics is the result of a certain art of government (Foucault, 2008, 2) that arose at a particular time in westernhistory and thought as an effort to rationalize the problems posed togovernmental practice by phenomena characteristic of a set of living beingsforming a population (Foucault, 2008, 317). Biopolitics has no sovereign willdriving its application; there is no Being behind it. Rather, it is an application of rationalities and consequently, for Foucault, it has a contingent quality to it. For Agamben, however, it is a strategy for governance amid the presence of theenemy. Agamben actualizes the homo sacer because the homo sacer isexemplary of biopolitics (Ansah, 2010, 147).

The state acts through Guantanamo to create norms

(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) What, then, is Guantnamos place in the structure of Agambensthought? Guantnamo is not

only a biopolitical space but also a place of anomie because, though the law has been suspended (the detainees have no legalclassification outside of being enemy combatants,
which means, despite somesuccess in the Supreme Court, they can remain in confinement for the durationof the war on terror), it still exists as a reality (the rule of law is upheld in theabsence of a law governing enemy combatants). What Guantnamo has created,in this view, is a

peculiar hybrid: an institution of restriction and an entity thatdecides who lives, who is known, and who disappears (Meek, 2003).Guantnamo appears as the rupture
in modern thought between the norm andthe exception. Its appearance highlights the collapsed distinction betweennature and law, and therefore represents the normality of the state of exceptionas a permanent structure of juridico-political de-localization and dis-location(Agamben, 1998, 38). As the state of

nature always exists within the state of civil society, the state of exception exists within the norm.

Gitmo Bad Human Rights

US policies at Guantanamo violate human rights laws Human Rights Watch et al, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Conectas Direitos
Humanos, CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation, East and Horn of Africa Human Rights Defenders Project, Asian Forum for Human Rights and Development (FORUM-ASIA), International Service for Human Rights, International Commission of Jurists, Cairo Institute for Human Rights Studies (CIHRS), JUNE 5, 2013, HRC 23 - Statement Delivered Under Item 4, on Behalf of 9 NGOs, with Support of 26 NGOs, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/06/05/un-human-rights-council-us-should-stopdetaining-individuals-without-charge-or-trial The United States continues to detain individuals for indefinite periods without charge or trial at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and at Bagram Airbase in Afghanistan in violation of its obligations under international human rights law. Of the 779 prisoners once detained at Guantanamo, 166 remain. Of those, the US designated 86 in 2010 as eligible for transfer to their home or third countries. But transfers have stalled due to a combination of congressional and executive restrictions. In recent months, more than 100 prisoners have engaged in a hunger strike, reportedly out of desperation because of their prolonged indefinite detention. The US military stated as of June 1 that it is forcefeeding 37 of them. The force-feeding of competent hunger-striking prisoners violates international legal protections against cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and contravenes medical ethics standards. The United States also continues to use fundamentally flawed military commissions at Guantanamo, which fall far short of international fair trial standards, to prosecute terrorism suspects even though US federal courts also have jurisdiction. The commissions allow the use as evidence of information obtained by coercion, lack independence, and provide little meaningful access to the proceedings for the public. They also fail to protect attorney-client communications. In February it was uncovered that a government agency had installed listening devices disguised as smoke detectors in attorney-client meeting rooms. In April, pre-trial hearings were delayed because the defense attorneys computer system was compromised. In his speech, President Obama signaled a plan to move the military commissions to the US. While doing so might address some logistical concerns, it would not change their fundamental unfairness.

Human rights violations at Guantanamo weaken Americas reputation and national security Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, MAY 16, 2013, Statement to the Senate
Armed Services Committee on the AUMF, Targeted Killing, & Guantanamo, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/us-statement-senate-armed-services-committee-aumf-targetedkilling-guantanamo By contrast, Congresss insistence on using military commissions at Guantanamo has been an unmitigated disaster. The only two convictions obtained after full trials have both been overturned by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; the five other convictions obtained were by plea bargain. During the same time that the military commissions have obtained these seven convictions, federal courts have prosecuted some 500 terrorism suspects. In addition, there are profound and legitimate concerns about the fairness of a system that, among other things, permits the introduction into evidence of coerced statements from witnesses, allows the military to hand-pick the jury pool, and severely compromises the attorney-client privilege. Roughly half of the Guantanamo detainees have theoretically been approved for transfer to their home or third countries, and those transfers can proceed if the administration certifies that appropriate security arrangements have been made. The administration should accelerate its efforts to make those arrangements. However, the administration also claims that there remains a category of detainees who are too dangerous to release but who cannot be tried because either there is insufficient

admissible evidence to prosecute them or their acts did not amount to a chargeable crime. The administration purports to hold these men under the above-described war powers. But even under war rules, the purpose of detention is to keep the enemy from returning to the battlefield. As the US involvement in the Afghan war winds down, it is not clear what war the men released from Guantanamo would return to. And if the fear is that they would join in criminal activity, the answer lies in criminal prosecution, including for such inchoate crimes as conspiracy or attempt, not the Minority Report approach of detaining them for crimes that they might at some future point plan to commit. Given Guantanamos enormous stain on Americas reputation, there is good reason to believe that these continuing detentions are causing more harm than good to Americas security and counterterrorism efforts. President Obama himself has stated that keeping Guantanamo open weakens US national security. And for the same reasons that long-term detention without trial is wrong and counterproductive in Guantanamo, it would be wrong and counterproductive if moved to the United States. That would simply replicate Guantanamo in another locale. One of Congresss most solemn duties is to protect human rights, especially the fundamental rights to life and liberty. War is sometimes necessary, but before embarking on that dangerous path, the risk to rights should be weighed carefully. This nation has now been on a war footing for an extraordinarily long time. Security risks will never be eliminated. But, as the Afghan war winds down, we have arrived at the stage where those risks can be managed without the danger to rights that further declared war entails. It is time to retire the AUMF and the unlawful practices it has spawned and sustained.

We seek to use Guantanamo to violate Geneva and dehumanize inmates

(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) It is not, however, the purpose of this paper to examine the rights of those detained at Guantnamo. Rather, we seek to situate the detainees withinthe broader discursive field that

relegates them to a lower status than prisonersof war because of the state of exception that they inhabit. Following the eventsof September 11, President Bush characterized the war on terror as a war thatdemands the full strength and power of the national security apparatus. Thiswould be a war like no other the United
States has engaged in:I know that some people question if America is really in a war atall. They view terrorism more as a crimea problem to besolved mainly with law enforcement and indictments. After theWorld Trade Center was first attacked in 1993, some of theguilty were indicted, tried, convicted, and sent to prison. But thematter was not settled. The terrorists were still training and plotting in other nations, and drawing up more ambitious plans.After the chaos and carnage of September 11th, it is not enoughto serve our enemies with legal papers. The terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United Statesand war is whatthey got. (Bush, 2004)In a situation governed by a war mentality rather than by the formalities of criminal justice, where the protections of due process are higher, the

BushAdministration abandoned concerns for abiding by established judicial normsregarding prisoners of war (Mayer, 2007). Attorney General Gonzales argued that this new paradigm [the global war on terror] renders obsolete Genevasstrict limitations on questioning of enemy prisoners and renders quaint some of its provisions (Barry et al., 2004, 3). In this new configuration, Guantnamo isthe rule by which the
exception is defined. And because the status of theGuantnamo detainees signifies more than a legal void, in the next twosections, we turn to three key thinkers on the question of sovereignty, biopower,and the state of exception (Foucault, Agamben, and Carl Schmitt), to discussthe contested meaning of sovereignty and the implications for understandingthe role of the excluded in an age of exception.

Gitmo Bad Perception of Legal System

The refusal to give due process rights to detainees at Guantanamo isolates the U.S. from other nations and damages the reputation of its legal system
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law, He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the 17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 163 GUANTNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57Wayne-L-Rev-163-Guantanamo-Understanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-ofAmerican-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray

This continued refusal to accord basic due process to the accused is not only antithetical to the legal landscape prevailing in other parts of the world, but also is a sharp departure from countries where justice mechanisms are at best subpar compared to the U.S. For example, in a still-developing terrorist case unfolding in
Pakistan, prosecutors indicted five Americans on terror-related offenses, laying out serious charges including waging war against Pakistan and plotting to attack the country. Even there, the detainees were granted defense lawyers and procedural due process rights under controlling domestic law and inconformity with applicable international law. The moral of this story is that despite its own

legitimate existential threat to both its system of government and its way of life, a country like Pakistan, which is never considered to be a beacon of Western justice, a country with a long record of torturing detainees, adheres to the rule of law when it comes to dealing with detainees. Why cant the U.S. follow suit? Even
Pakistan can charge and try suspected terrorists in a civilian court system. Many Western nations other than the U.S. have shown in the recent past that they have the courage to go through the same open, courtbased justice system. Therefore, the U.S. is becoming more isolated in its insistence on

applying uniquely designed tribunals to ensure conviction for terrorist detainees. While the Obama Administration views itself as the self-anointed international arbiter of
justice and continues to lecture the rest of the world about their respective violations of human rights, why isnt Americas justice system robust enough to handle justice mechanisms for terrorism suspects? I seek to explore the answers to establish the final dimension of the narrative of Guantnamo as it must be understood through the dual threads of stark capitalism and domesticated exceptionalism.

Gitmo Bad Targeted Killings

Human rights violations at Guantanamo lead to unjustified targeted killings worldwide Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, MAY 16, 2013, Statement to the Senate
Armed Services Committee on the AUMF, Targeted Killing, & Guantanamo, http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/05/16/us-statement-senate-armed-services-committee-aumf-targetedkilling-guantanamo Moreover, when it comes to combatants in an armed conflict, the power to detain can easily be linked to the power to kill. If the United States is going to claim the right to detain combatants without end on the basis of a global war unconnected to a traditional battlefield, against a non-state enemy that does not control any substantial territory, other nations will undoubtedly make similar claims. And, once governments identify people as combatants, however wrongful that may be, they will inevitably claim the power not only to detain them without charge or trial but also to kill them. Although the United States currently detains many people who are clearly not combatants those drivers, cooks, doctors and financiers, among others it should be mindful of how its policies can be interpreted.

Gitmo Bad American Exceptionalism

Guantanamo keeps American Exceptionalism alive
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law, He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the 17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 163 GUANTNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57Wayne-L-Rev-163-Guantanamo-Understanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-ofAmerican-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray

American Exceptionalism broadly refers to the opinion that the U.S.is structurally, fundamentally, and qualitatively different from other nations, as it emerged out of a revolution and forged a unique ideology. On the surface, American Exceptionalism manifested itself on the promise of liberty, egalitarianism, and individualisma narrative solidified by the writings of Alexis De Tocqueville to emphasize Americans unique and heightened status among the comity of nations. Unfortunately, however, the majority of Americans misinterpreted the true meaning of exceptionalism, as they failed to see its iniquities imperialism, and war-mongering, remnants of which still reverberate through the continued evolution of Guantnamo.

Guantanamo was created out of fear as a symbol of security and American exceptionalism
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law, He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the 17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 163 GUANTNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57Wayne-L-Rev-163-Guantanamo-Understanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-ofAmerican-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray

The existential threat presented by 9/11 not only brought forth paralytic psychosis, but it also temporarily decoupled the populace from that entrenched feeling of exceptionalism. The feeling of defeat was so deep in the minds of the populace that the human construct needed an earth-shattering mechanism to deal with the decoupling to feel normal again. Against this backdrop,

the Administration and the security apparatus of the state resorted to organized violence against the source of the threat, which was manifested in the events of human violations at Guantnamo and evolved within a broader dehumanization mechanism. Thus, Guantnamo provided both the populace and the Administration impetus for dehumanization, which the security apparatus embarked on with impunity. As the history of Guantnamo, the events
surrounding the detainees, and their detention process unfolds, the legal affairs and events associated with this detention have come to light in drips and drabs. Despite a paucity of admissions, it is clear that, in many cases, indefinite detentions have been sustained via manufactured evidence. It is also clear that a vast number of these terrorism charges will not prevail in a transparent system of justice. But every victim wants redemption. Every injured person wants retribution and desires that some living entity be held accountable for their pain. Herein lays the paradox of Guantnamo. If the whole saga of

Guantnamo is stripped out of the broader U.S. detention policy, we might be able to align American detention policy along the general contours of international humanitarian law (IHL). At the fundamental level, human rights law is premised on its ontological independence from the state sovereign. Fundamental jus cogens norms apply everywhere as they are premised on shared humanity. In addition, the law of fundamental rights has an omnipotent permanent nature, except in Guantnamo, which is characterized by absolute disjunction from most provisions of IHL. This systemic illegality did not creep in by chance, nor did it develop in a vacuum. This exuberance of the monopoly of state violence did not cross into lawlessness by happenstance. This was done by design, with a predicated outcome in mind. This is because the American domestic agenda requires a set of human detainees perpetually responsible and permanently incarcerated for the wound of 9/11 to be soothed and for the existential threat to disappear. That is why any effort to bring transparency to the justice process has been confronted with a multitude of obstacles. The fundamental building block for a criminal justice mechanism is due process and the rights of the accused to be accorded with that due process of law. This is premised on irrefutable and confrontational evidence that can be challenged within adequate legal protection. Because the evidence gathering mechanism and the quality of evidence against most terrorism suspects is suspect and flimsy at best, the real prospect of bringing civilian trial proceedings is becoming increasingly remote or non-existent. Imagine if this quality of evidence finds its way into traditional civilian proceedings. The outcome in such prospective terrorist trial proceedings would cause a suspect to be found not guilty. What will happen to the domestic population? The subjects of existential threats need their dignity and the feeling of invulnerability restored. They require the outcome of such trials to be predictable in finding maximum punishment of the suspects. This then leads us to see the Guantnamo proceedings as a vehicle to establish a universally accepted domesticated response. We begin to see why the framework for
closure of Guantnamo has not been constructed, because any framework of closure for Guantnamo

must first embrace the domesticated exceptionalism of Americans and this domesticated exceptionalism is completely disjunctive with the transparent notion of justice. I submit that closure of Guantnamo will remain mired in uncertainty and confusion *****is this argument a problem for our aff?*************

Guantanamo and other aspects of the war on terror perpetuate American Exceptionalism and racism Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf The meeting of exceptionalism, liberalism and the colossal US military machine is explosive. Because the idea of exceptionalism (reied as it is, not being criticized) expresses some sort of superiority that not only gives the US the right of lecturing other people on how to organize their societies, but also establishes a sort of hierarchy of life value, at the top of which rest American lives. If we add to this the disproportionate military apparatus and a liberal discourse arming US action is carried out in the name of Humanity and not because of self-interest, the real possibility to carry out extermination policies towards those who do not agree with the way of life that is being imposed on them emerges. This is one way to understand a fundamental US paradox: While it has had the leading role in constructing the most complex international legal order to maintain peace, it has, at the same time, constructed a colossal military machine -without a peer competitor- that cannot be understood solely in terms of defense (of Humanity). What we are trying to emphasize is the intrinsic linkage between US democracy and violence and the danger that accompanies it when used in the name of universality, because it can lead to an exterminating violence. As Benjamin once said, this violence is not just a conservative one, but can act as a founder one (1995). And this is important too: No democracy works without violence and -we do not have to forget- violence is in the origins of US democracy. Indeed, it was built on the genocide of natives and slavery. Furthermore, must consider this an open chapter in history: in Libya, in Afghanistan, in Iraq (just for citing some examples) US is currentlyexercising founder violence. Whether the exceptionalism is understood as an example or as a right and a duty to impose particular values on other people, both meanings shed light on the sense of superiority that permeates US identity. We can arm thus that American exceptionalism is no more than a form of racism. This assertion deserves further development.

American exceptionalism justifies extermination of the other Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf In this context, talking about the Bush administration appears to be almost an obligation. Indeed, after raising the WMD and the Saddam Hussein-Al Qaida liaisons questions, the discourse of the previous US administration turned to democracy. The diagnosis was that terrorism was an e ect of freedom/democracy decit in the Middle East region; hence, the treatment implied its imposition. As we have held before, the Bush administration tried to amalgamate interests and values. Freedom and security: the two principal features of the biopolitical power strongly emerged. Indeed, after 9-11, the most important interest of US appeared to be a vital one: assuring the nation. The main value, what (it was said) distinguished US from the rest of the world, was freedom, homologated with its

democratic system. Thus, security adopted notjust a conservative character, linked with survival, but a multiplier one: it was not just about protection but about improvement as well. As said, liberal democracy is expected to be fully inclusive, forgetting that it is based (as we have seen) on exclusion. Furthermore, the dialectic inclusion/exclusion still works here, with the augmented risk that exclusion takes the form of an exterminating one. That is, if liberal hegemony aspires to a universal inclusion,it takes the risk of: 1. including the other in a hierarchical way, through the negation of his otherness (thus, turning it in someone similar, erasing its di erences); 2. exterminating those who do not accept being included. And it is here where cultural racism works, because it is the mechanism which permits the US or -now that the North American power aspires to play a low prole role in the interventionist moves- the liberal powers in general, to kill in the name of certain universalities: freedom and Humanity. The US policy towards Iraq and Afghanistan and (with some di erences) last intervention in Libya, where many people have been killed on behalf of their own well-being, are a few examples of what we are trying to explain.

American exceptionalism is the mentality behind the USFGs actions Mariela Cuadro, PhD in International Relations from Universidad Nacional de La Plata, Licensed in
Sociology at Universidad de Buenos Aires, coordinator and investigator for the Middle East department of the Instituto de Relaciones Internacionales (Institute of International Relations), 2011, Universalisation of liberal democracy, American exceptionalism and racism, http://www2.huberlin.de/transcience/Vol2_Issue2_2011_30_43.pdf Obviously, if it is assumed that the expansion of the American model represents the improvement of the world, in this assumption it is implicit the idea of US superiority, entailed in that of American exceptionalism. In sum, American cultural racism, is debtor of the American exceptionalism that crosses the whole history of the US and it is clear in the assumption that the world will be not just safer but better if everybody adopts liberal democracy. It is important to note, as we have seen, that this form of racism is shared by the entire US political spectrum. As Krauthammer held, the Democratic critique of war in Iraq was not a critique of policy, but one of process (Krauthammer, 2004). As Rosati argues, Americans have such a strong faith in American virtue and progress that it is dicult for them to understand, let alone accept, the value of alternative paths to economic and political [I would add: and cultural] development divorced from the American model (1993: 395). If we add to this the limited interest of the American public in foreign a airs (what would suppose to know and think about foreign realities and histories), the statements of US politicians that justify Foreign Policy in certain ways and not in others (in ways that can be labeled as racist), can be accepted uncritically.

Biopower Bad
The biopolitical state reproduces war, patriarchy, and other hegemonic social orders
(Dominic Corva, 2009, Director at The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, BS in Economics, University of Houston. BA, Creative Writing, University of Arizona. MA and PhD, Geography, University of Washington. Biopower and the Militarization of the Police Function http://www.academia.edu/298029/Biopower_and_the_Militarization_of_the_Police_Function, DS) Hardt and Negris central claim with respect to this task is that war has become a regime of

biopower, a form of rule aimed not only at controlling the population but producing and reproducing all aspects of social life (2004, 13). It iswell beyond the
scope of this review to examine Foucaults theorization of biopower, 2 but it is important to point out that Hardt and Negris inclusion of controlling the population in their definition is consistent with an often-overlooked aspect of governmentality, the mode of governance in which strategiesof sovereign power are subsumed by biopower. This aspect is the inclusion of sovereign power, rather than its total eclipse, in strategies associated with liberalgovernmentality (see Foucault in Burchell et al, 1991, 102). In this article, I use theterm sovereign power to denote the use of state-sanctioned force (what Foucaultcalls negative or repressive power) to control domestic and/or foreign territories. And

biopower, though it is articulated with strategies of sovereign power, positively produces subjects of governance through techniques of normalization. Biopolitical strategies of governance secure the reproduction of hegemonic 3 social orders (capitalist, patriarchal, masculinist, sexist, racist and so forth). For Foucault, both strategies are articulated and dispersed through the territorial state, to addressthe problem of governing a national population. The state, with its attendant sovereign functions, is an effect of hegemonic orders, while at the same time a necessary nexus for the dispersal of hegemony-friendly, mostly biopolitical but also sovereign, strategies of governance.

The state imposing biopower on foreign bodies justifies coercive violence and violates human rights
(Dominic Corva, 2009, Director at The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, BS in Economics, University of Houston. BA, Creative Writing, University of Arizona. MA and PhD, Geography, University of Washington. Biopower and the Militarization of the Police Function http://www.academia.edu/298029/Biopower_and_the_Militarization_of_the_Police_Function, DS) This brief conceptualization of the liberal police function as biopolitical has some significant shortcomings. It is profoundly silent with respect to spatialdifference. It attempts to describe the police function of the welfare state, whichtook quite a different form in the U.S., for example, as compared to theNetherlands. And to put it mildly, the global South did not have a comparable experience with the welfare state. But it does beg the question of how the age of neoliberalization has seen the return of a much more coercive and militant policefunction where the welfarist model was once ascendant. This last critique bears special relevance to the question of how war has become a regime of biopower, and for coming to better understanding of what that might mean for the unevenness of

sovereign power in Empires biopolitical order. The

welfare states domestic territorialization of the criminal justice subject included the criminal in regimes of national citizenship: one who has citizenshiprights and, good or bad, deserves some forms of state protection. On the otherhand, the foreign territorialization of the war subject helped constitute what itmeant not to be a citizen: one who is not party to the social contract, and thereforeis subject to coercive violence in defense of the national population. The war/military function has historically been based on principles of state sovereignty, which create a clearly defined outside against which to operatethe spatial orderof classical geopolitics. The soldier is unconcerned with the liberal rights of histargets, operating in the state of emergency that is war, intent upon killing theenemy in order to secure domestic territory. As Hardt and Negri point out, this model of warfare identifies its adversariesas
foreign citizens and territorializes its battlegrounds as bordered places (2004,37). It ends when soldiers surrender and territories are occupied. The biopoliticization of the military function

happens when its transnational subjectsare no longer specific people and places but abstract categories of dangerous abnormality. War as a global regime of biopower is war against categories of riskto society that could be produced by anyone, anywhere. Terror and drugs, totake the paradigmatic examples, are vectors of transnational danger to law-abiding,freedom-loving citizens of the global economy, rather than territorialized enemiesof states and national populations.

US biopower in the southern hemisphere justifies social prejudice and causes more violence
(Dominic Corva, 2009, Director at The Center for the Study of Cannabis and Social Policy, BS in Economics, University of Houston. BA, Creative Writing, University of Arizona. MA and PhD, Geography, University of Washington. Biopower and the Militarization of the Police Function http://www.academia.edu/298029/Biopower_and_the_Militarization_of_the_Police_Function, DS) U.S. drug war programs have historically been located in Southeast Asia,Southwest Asia, and Latin America. However, the crack hysteria of the 1980s,coinciding with the worst of the Latin American debt crisis, meant that thegeographies of cocaines commodity chain have focused U.S. leverage in thewestern hemisphere. Since 1986, only three times has presidential decertification without the national interest waiver occurred: Panama in 1989; and Colombia in1995 and 1996. The former decertification was followed by a military invasion,and the arrest of Manuel Noriega on charges of drug trafficking. The latterimmediately preceded the fall of the recalcitrant Samper administration. ThePastrana administration is credited with coming up with the idea for PlanColombia, which in its original formulation involved European developmentassistance and concentrated on facilitating the peace process. The European Unionbacked out of the plan when the U.S. insisted that its assistance be conditioned onand complemented with the stick of militarization (Schnrock-Martinez, 2006).Today, Plan Colombia is primarily a package of military aid designed to more fullyarm Colombias army and police (Isaacson, 2005). A historical geography of theMajors certification process demonstrates at least two significant things about how the militarization of the police function has been transnationalized through the waron drugs.First, it has been exported via transnational economic

governance throughconsent leveraged by a carrot-and-stick technique. Certainly, the stick includesthe expansion of the penal state and the militarization of drug war policing. Butalso, the carrot of

development aid is produced through the stick of povertyand Southern vulnerability reproduced by the neoliberal development andglobalization characteristics of Empire. Given the threat of a U.S. veto onmultilateral development bank
loans, alongside suspension of bilateral aid, Majors certification should be considered a structural adjustment conditionality alongsidethose laid out in the Washington Consensus, and as such part-andparcel of neoliberal governmentality. The overt politicization of transnational aid

throughnational legislation has been acquiesced by Empires institutions of neoliberal governance. To a large degree, European governments have consented to theleveraged
exportation of the warfare/carceral model to the South by the U.S., whileretaining for themselves more welfarist approaches to the question of transnationalprohibitionand more recently, outright decriminalization. 8 Second, the militarization of police forces in Latin America, the

presence of U.S. Department of Justice personnel on foreign territory, the normalization of ecocide through forced aerial eradication, and the rise of mass incarceration all signal a thickening of the police function against underprivileged racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic groups. Many of these have
responded to debt crisis-inducedausterity by growing dangerous harvests (Steinberg et al, 2004) or becomingdisposable, risk-taking labor for narco-capitalism (Sudbury, 2006). The enemies of drug

war policies are embodied as gendered, racialized, ethnic and poor people, but for the thickened police function they are first and foremost symptoms of transnational disorder the scourges of drugs, illicit economic trade, and unproductive labor. This thickening of the police function against vulnerable subjects has
widerconsequences than those directly related to militarization. It also produces certainsubjects through the creation of a not-insignificant illicit economy. The U.N.estimates the value of the global drug market at approximately $450 billion, whichis much closer to the size of the global oil economy than it is to that of agriculturalstaples (Thoumi, 2003). This illicit economy is fed by the

militarization of the police function: high risk means high profit and increased use of violence to produce and maintain that profit. The same offshore banks that serve as
corporateand private tax shelters for the rich serve as sites of money laundering for theprofits of narcocapital. This makes transnational corporations and transnationalorganized crime allies in their strategies to avoid accountability to the state and anyefforts to democratize transnational financial governance. These spaces of invisibility also make drug trafficking a growth industry of choice for mafias,insurgents, clandestine government operations, diversifying oligarchs and corruptgovernment officials at all levels (including the police) all over the world (seeNordstrom, 2000). Of course, it also provides economic opportunities forunderemployed labor and people with nothing to lose but their lives. Labor

exploitation takes on a whole new dimension when ones job requirements includethe willingness to risk death and/or incarceration, but some entry-level jobs doallow one to travel the world (drug mules, for example).

Biopower caused the holocaust and the impacts of racism

Rabinow et al 12-01-2003, Paul Rabinow, professor of anthropology at UC Berkeley, Along with
Nikolas Rose, Department of Sociology, London School of Economics and Political Science, Thoughts

on the Concept of Biopower Today, http://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/pdf/rabinowandrosebiopowertoday03.pdf DS)

Holocaust is undoubtedly one configuration that modern biopower can take. Racisms allows power to sub-divide a population into subspecies known as races, to fragment it, and to allow a relationship in which the death of the other, of the inferior race, can be seen as something that will make life in general healthier and purer: as Foucault put it in 1976 racism justifies the death-function in the
economy of biopower by appealing to the principle that the death of others makes one biologically stronger insofar as ones is a member of a race or a population (2003: 258). It is true that in this lecture he suggests that it is the emergence of biopower that inscribes [racism] in

the mechanisms of the State as the basic mechanism of power, as it is exercised in modern States. (2003: 254). But the Nazi regime was, in his view, exceptional a paroxysmal development : We have, then, in Nazi society something that is really quite extraordinary: this is a society which has generalized biopower in an absolute sense, but which has also generalized the sovereign right to kill to kill anyone, meaning not only other people but also its own people a coincidence between a
generalized biopower and a dictatorship that was at once absolute and retransmitted throughout the entire social body (2003: 260). ). Biopower in the form it took under National Socialism was a complex mix of the politics of life and the politics of death as Robert Proctor points out, Nazi doctors and health activists waged war on tobacco, sought to curb exposure to asbestos, worried about the over use of medication and X-rays, stressed the importance of a diet for of petrochemical dies and preservatives, campaigned for whole-grain bread and foods high in vitamins and fiber, and many were vegetarians (Proctor, 1999). But within this complex, the path to the death camps was dependent upon a host of other historical, moral, political and technical conditions. Holocaust is neither exemplary of thanato-politics, nor the hidden dark truth of biopower.

Biopower justifies holocaust

Keith Crome 2009, Keith Crome is Senior Lecturer in Philosophy at Manchester Metropolitan university. He is the author of Lyotard and Greek Thought: Sophistry, and the co-editor of the Lyotard Reader and Guide, THE NIHILISTIC AFFIRMATION OF LIFE: BIOPOWER AND BIOPOLITICS IN THE WILL TO KNOWLEDGE, http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia06/parrhesia06_crome.pdf DS) It is for this reason that Foucault posits a connection between biopolitics, biopower and the holocaust, for as he remarks: for the first time in history, the possibilities of the social sciences are made known, and at once it becomes possible both to protect life and to authorise a holocaust.41 It is in this sense that Foucault can say that what are often regarded as the two pathological forms of power in the twentieth century, Fascism and Stalinism, are, despite their historical uniqueness, not quite original, for they used and

extended mechanisms already present in most other societies [... and] in spite of their own internal madness, they used to a large extent, the ideas and the devices of our political rationality.42 Certainly I do not want to be understood to be claiming
that Fascism and Stalinism are identical, or that the differences between them are irrelevant, nor do I want to be taken to be claiming that Foucault would himself have been dismissive of the differences between

them. Rather, what I am claiming is that, on the one hand, Foucaults genealogical attention

to the effectiveness of power allows us to distinguish the historical specificity of modern genocide. For rather than simply distinguishing it by the quantity of those killed, and the
means by which such quantities of people were killed, Foucault allows us to grasp the essential transformation at issue, namely the political and philosophical transformation of the relation to life itself. As he argues if genocide is indeed the dream of modern powers, this is not

because of a recent return of the ancient right to kill; it is because power is situated and exercised at the level of life, the species, the race, and the largescale phenomena of population (Foucault, 137). On the other handand I take this to be
equally importanthere we find Foucault expressly arguing that our political rationalityliberal governmentalityis not extrinsic to genocide, totalitarianism, or despotism. Biopolitics is, then, intrinsically related to thanatopolitics. This is in sharp contrast to Negri,43 who argues that thanatopolitics is neither an internal alternative to biopolitics, nor a biopolitical ambiguity, but its exact opposite, an authoritarian transcendence, an apparatus of corruption.44 If Negri can make such an affirmation it is not because he has misread Foucault: his reading of Foucault is, in many respects, insightful and acute, and worthy of attention. Rather, it is because he wants to claim that linking biopolitics to thanatopolitics as I have done here is to overestimate biopower whilst underestimating the possibility of resistance.45 Yet, the possibility of resistance is, for Negri, to be found in the spontaneous production of subjectivity that results from biopolitics, a claim that itself fundamentally confuses praxis, practical activity, with production, and which, as I have argued above, reproduces the nihilism of biopolitics as it tries to evoke some means of combating it by collapsing the political into the economic.

The biopolitical state justifies racism which in turn justifies killing

Volha Piotukh, Edinburgh, 6 June 2008, PhD student, School of Politics and International Studies, (POLIS) The University of Leeds, Supervisors: Dr. Deiniol Jones and Prof. Alice Hills, Humanitarian Action and the War on Terror: Some Preliminary Thoughts on a New Biopolitical Nexus www.pol.ed.ac.uk/__data/assets/word_doc/0004/.../Piotukh_Paper.doc DS) Foucault addresses this question by turning to the concept of racism. For him, it is the emergence

of biopower that inscribes racism in the mechanisms of state. Racism in this context is understood as a way of introducing a break into the domain of life that is under powers control the break between what must live and what must die (Foucault, 2003 p. 254). It is, in essence, a way of separating out the groups that exist within a population (Foucault, 2003 p. 255). Another important function
of racism is the establishment of a positive relation of the type: The very fact that you let more die will allow you to live more. While it is a familiar relationship of war: In order to live, you must destroy your enemies, Foucault argues that it functions in a new way. He explains: The fact that the other

dies does not mean simply that I live in the sense that his death guarantees my safety; the death of the other, the death of the bad race, of the inferior race () is something that will make life in general healthier () and purer (Foucault,
2003 p. 255). Therefore, it is not a military, but a biological relationship. In this kind of relationship the enemies who need to be eliminated are threats, either external or internal, to the population; and racism is the precondition for exercising the right to kill (Foucault, 2003 p. 256). Killing in this context does not have to be limited to murder as such, it can be anything from exposing

someone to death to political death, expulsion and so on. Finally, as [r]acism is bound up with the workings of a State that is obliged to use race, the elimination of races and the purification of the race, to exercise its sovereign power, the most murderous States are also, of necessity, the most racist (Foucault, 2003 p. 258).

Torture Bad
Torture violates dignity and cannot be justified
UNITED NATIONS ND (international organization whose stated aims include promoting and
facilitating cooperation in international law, international security, economic development and social progress, press release International Day in Support of Victims of Torture No date, http://www.un.org/en/events/torturevictimsday/)

Torture seeks to annihilate the victims personality and denies the inherent dignity of the human being. The United Nations has condemned torture from the outset as one of the vilest acts perpetrated by human beings on their fellow human beings. Torture is a crime under international law. According to all relevant instruments, it is absolutely prohibited and cannot be justified under any circumstances. This prohibition forms part of customary international law, which means that it is binding on every member of the international community, regardless of whether a State has ratified international treaties in which torture is expressly prohibited. The systematic or widespread practice of torture constitutes a crime against humanity.

There can be no exceptions with torture

Leahy 04 (Patrick, the senior United States Senator from Vermont, in office since 1975. A member of
the Democratic Party, He graduated from Saint Michael's College in 1961 and received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1964. He practiced as a lawyer until he was elected as State's Attorney of Chittenden County in 1966 and re-elected in 1970. Boston Globe There is no justification for torture June 28, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/06/28/there_is_no_justification_ for_torture/)

evidence continues to seep out of similar mistreatment of prisoners in other US military detention centers in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo Bay. Top White House and Pentagon officials have sought to deny any pattern of illegality in the interrogation and treatment of
Since the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison were revealed, prisoners in US custody. They insist that members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban fall outside the protections of the Geneva Conventions. The reach of the Geneva

What is not debatable is that the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, which the United States signed and ratified, makes no distinction between American citizens, Iraqis, or anyone else. It unequivocally forbids the use of torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, anywhere, at any time, under any circumstances. So does US law. So does our military's manual for intelligence interrogation. Yet we now know that
Conventions is debatable. the White House and the Pentagon were actively working to circumvent the law. Guidelines for interrogating prisoners were applied routinely in multiple locations in ways that were illegal. It is also clear that US officials knew the law was being violated and for months, possibly years, did virtually nothing about it. I first wrote to the White House, the Pentagon, and the CIA last June about the reported torture of Afghan prisoners by US interrogators. Two prisoners had died during interrogation. Others described being forced to stand naked in a cold room for days without interruption, with their arms raised and chained to the ceiling and their swollen ankles shackled. They said they were denied sleep and forced to wear hoods that cut off the supply of oxygen. My letter, and subsequent letters, were either ignored or received responses which, in retrospect, bore no resemblance to the facts. Sixteen months later, the investigations of those deaths, ruled homicides, remain incomplete.

Prisoners who are suspected of having killed or attempted to kill Americans do not deserve comforts. But the use of torture undermines our global efforts against terrorism and is beneath our nation. There are many victims of this policy. First are the Iraqis, Afghans, and other detainees, some innocent of any crime who were tortured or subjected to cruel treatment. We now know that many other Iraqis and Afghans died in US custody, and many of those deaths were never investigated. Second are our own soldiers, who overwhelmingly perform their duties with honor and courage, and who now have been unfairly tarnished. And then there is America itself. The damage this administration has caused to our credibility will take years to repair. The individuals who committed those
acts are being punished, as they must be. But what of those who gave the orders or set the tone or looked the other way? What of the White House and Pentagon lawyers who tried to justify the use of torture? And what of the president? Last March, referring to the capture of US soldiers by Iraqi forces, President Bush said, "We expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoner of theirs that we capture humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals." At the same time, the president's lawyer called the Geneva Conventions "obsolete."

The law makes no exception

for torture. The torture of criminal suspects flagrantly violates the presumption of innocence on which our criminal jurisprudence is based, and confessions extracted through torture are notoriously unreliable. Once exceptions are made for torture it is impossible to draw the line, and more troubling is who would be in charge of drawing it. If torture is justified in Afghanistan, why is it not justified in China, or Syria, or Argentina, or Miami? If torture is justified to obtain information from a suspected terrorist, why not from his wife or children? Some
argue it is a new world since the attacks of Sept. 11. To some degree, they are right, which is why we have reacted with tougher laws and better tools to fight this war.

do we really want to usher in a new world that justifies inhumane, immoral and cruel treatment as any means to an end? We must reject the dangerous notion that torture can be legally justified.
But

Torture must be denied even in extreme circumstances

Jacoby 05 (Jeff, An Op-Ed columnist and nationally recognized conservative voice, Jacoby was hired
from the Boston Herald in 1987. He briefly practiced law and was a commentator for WBUR-FM. His awards include the 1999 Breindel Prize and the 2004 Thomas Paine Award. Graduate of George Washington University and the Boston University School of Law, both with honor, Boston Globe Why not torture terrorists? March 20, http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/03/20/why_not_torture_terrorist s/)

By ''extreme circumstances" he meant what is often called the ''ticking-bomb" scenario: A deadly terror attack is looming, and you can prevent it only by

getting the information your prisoner refuses to divulge. Torture might force him to talk, thereby saving thousands of innocent lives. May he be tortured? Many Americans would say yes without hesitating. Some would argue that torturing a
terrorist is not nearly as wrong as refusing to do so and thereby allowing another 9/11 to occur. Others would insist that monsters of Mohammed's ilk deserve no decency. As an indignant reader (one of many) wrote to me after last week's column on the cruel abuse of some US detainees, ''The terrorists . . . would cut your heart out and stuff it into the throat they would proudly slash open." So why not torture

detainees, if it will produce the information we need? Here's why: First, because torture, as noted, is unambiguously illegal -- illegal under a covenant the United States ratified,
illegal under federal law, and illegal under protocols of civilization dating back to the Magna Carta. Second, because torture is notoriously unreliable. Many people will say anything to make the pain stop, while some will refuse to yield no matter what is done to them. Yes, sometimes torture produces vital information. But it can also produce false leads and desperate fictions. In the ticking-bomb case, bad information is every bit as deadly as no information. Third, because torture is never limited to just the guilty. The case for razors and electric shock rests on the premise that the prisoner is a knowledgeable terrorist like Mohammed or Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. But most of the inmates in military prisons are nothing of the kind. Commanders in Guantanamo acknowledge that hundreds of their prisoners pose no danger and have no useful information. How much of the hideous abuse reported to date involved men who were guilty only of being in the wrong place at the wrong time? And fourth,

because torture is a dangerously slippery slope. Electric shocks and beatings are justified if they can prevent another 9/11? But what if the shocks and beating don't produce the needed information? Is it OK to break a finger? To cut off a hand? To save 3,000 lives, can a terrorist's eyes be gouged out? How about gouging out his son's eyes? Or raping his daughter in his presence? If that's what it will take to make him talk, to defuse the ticking bomb, isn't it worth it? No. Torture is never worth it. Some things we don't do, not because they never work, not because they aren't ''deserved," but because our very right to call ourselves decent human beings depends in part on our not doing them. Torture is in that category. We can win our war against the barbarians without becoming barbaric in the process.

Closing Gitmo Solves Biopower

Guantanamo represents biopolitics
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) To be sure, the inmates of Guantnamo are not in the same situation asthe inmates of the Third Reich (Agamben, 2005, 4). For the most part, theformer have been captured on the battlefield and are not slated for death in gaschambers or forced marches. Many have been released. As the Supreme Courthas made clear, detainees have rights against their captors. But theunderstanding of the meaning of Guantnamo cannot be restricted to theempirical or the literal. Nor can it be limited to what the law has allowed andrestricted. Following Agamben, Guantnamo must be understood in itscoherent biopolitical meaning (Agamben, 1998, 131). What this means is that the elaboration of power over those

deemed unworthy of life must beunderstood as an unfolding of power that reveals itself with the anatomo- politics of the human body and the regulatory controls of a biopolitics of the population (Foucault, 1990b, 139;
italics in original).The long view regarding the evolution of Guantnamo as a species of biopower that has roots in the classical distinction between zoe , or bare life, and bios , a life within a political community, seems to us more appropriate than an alternative view that sees Guantnamo as a site of power and resistance thattugs at, but does not question, the concept of the political. The body isalways already caught in a deployment of power, Agamben argues (1998,187), and it is necessary to see how that deployment of power has turned intothe concept of sovereignty where the Muselmann, and not the political animal,is the focal point. Indeed, to understand Agambens point, it is

important to setGuantnamo within the context of the capillary nature of power, that is, byinvestigating the practice of power relations on and within the social body(Foucault, 1990a, 118). To concentrate on the detainees success in chippingaway at the Bush Administrations restrictive approach to legal remedies for detainees is to continue to operate within the juridico-political discourse(Foucault, 1990b, 88) that established Guantnamo in the first place. Power must be examined as something that is always already there; we
mustrecognize that one is never outside power (Foucault, 1980, 141), a view notnormally associated with legal liberalism. It is, at the same time, important to recognize Guantnamo as

one link ina biopolitical chain that has brought to light the effects of biopower onsovereignty. A more detailed exposition of this thought would have to includeAgambens

discussion, at the end of Homo Sacer , of the politicization of deathin the field of health care ethics (Agamben, 1998, 160-165). But here let itsuffice to say that the detainees debased moral standing, for Agamben, cannot be the result of a failed effort to establish the proper forum necessary for tryingthose held outside the territory of the United States. Rather, the Muselmnner are the site of an experiment in which morality and humanity themselves arecalled into question (Agamben, 1999, 63). As they move in an absoluteindistinction of fact and law (Agamben, 1998, 185), Agamben understandstheir presence neither as an effect of war nor as a representation of a rupture inlaw, but in ontological terms, because the state of war or of exception has become the norm by which subjectivity is formed and reformed. In this veryreal sense, the camp has replaced the city as the paradigmatic structure of modern times that informs subjectivity

Guantanamo is equivalent to the Third Reich

(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic, Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS) These detailed, biopolitical regulations over life and death at Abu Ghraibsurpass any legal regulation of disciplinarity, of the regulation of bodies for thesake of greater productivity. These are willed regulations, staged for effect, anddesigned to diminish resistance. The prison camps of the war on terror

do notrepresent the appearance of the extension of the legal bureaucratic matrix to thewar on terror or to the application of those who are without a country. The camps mean that the realm of biopolitics, with its emphasis on the convergenceof medicine and politics (Agamben, 1998, 143), seek to achieve theassimilation of biological existence with political existence (Foucault, 1990b,142). They are sites for the reformation of political, cultural, and ethicalunderstandings of what it is to be human in the twenty-first century. But at their core, they look back to the twentieth century, not to the regulations of the self that Foucault detailed in his final works. They are, then, the final integration of the tactics,

techniques, and strategies used during the Third Reich

Camps like Guantanamo are the home of biopower and lawlessness, and create unfair norms
(Cary Federman, 2011, received Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of Virginia and has taught at the University of Virginia and at James Madison College (Michigan State University). Recipient of two Fulbright scholarships, taught law and political science at the University of Zagreb, Croatia and criminology at the Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, University of Ljubljana, Slovenia. Has lectured at the University of Belgrade Faculty of Law, the University of Graz (Faculties of Law and Social Sciences), and taught American Politics and Law at Palacky University, the Czech Republic,

Guantanamo Bodies: Law, Media, and Biopower http://www.academia.edu/1051667/Guantanamo_Bodies_Law_Media_and_Biopower (NOTE-THE MUSSELMAN IS A BEING THAT HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY DEGRADED TO SEEM TO BE ON THE EDGE OF DEATH, THE ZOE IS A BEING THAT IS CONDEMNED IN A SPIRITUAL OR PHYSICAL SENSE) DS)

The popular image of Guantnamo detainees is of shackled, hooded men inorange jump suits, surrounded by barbed wire. The space of the camp,Agamben writes, washes up against a central non-place, where the Muselmann lives (Agamben, 1999, 51-52; italics in original). The camp is the place for bioconvergence, an intersection of image, biopower, and the law. For
manyAmericans, these images have defined what it means to be Muslim (Senguptaand Masood, 2005).

The images of Guantnamo have created, on a global scale,the meaning of the camp as a place of biopolitical convergence.The homo sacer is the site upon which sovereign power is founded(Agamben, 1998, 142). The sovereign authority that governs Guantnamo hasthe power over life and death, the power to decide who shall become a
zoe andwho a bios . It is not a lawless entity, but a law-giving entity, even as it hassuspended the laws power. The force of law remains in effect as the power that informs life from the beginning in all its extension, constitution, andintensity (Esposito, 2008, 81). But other forces can be discerned that have produced counter-narratives. By creating an archive of the lost voices from thewar on terror, the press and international organizations have revealed thatGuantnamo is more than a prison; it is a norm-producing entity (Johns,2005, 615). The prison camps in Cuba have

helped frame the understanding of the war on terror as premised on biological-political rationalities. The ground of that reality is the value of life itself, measured
by the body of the prisoner.

The camp is a site of bare life which securitizes life

(Nick Vaughan-Williams, 2008, Reader in International Security, and Deputy Director of Research in PAIS. Previously held Lectureships at the University of Exeter and the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Studied Modern History at the University of Oxford, and then International Relations at the Universities of Warwick (MA) and Aberystwyth (PhD). International Political Sociology, Borders, territory, law http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/reading/poststructuralism/docum ents/NVW.pdf, DS) The concept of bare life is a difficult and contestable one in Agambens work 29 and it is possible to read it in different ways. There is a tendency to reduce bare 30 life to zoe but this suggests that it is something we are all somehow born with 31 rather than a status that is performatively produced in different locations at differ- 32 ent times. The reading advanced here is to treat bare life as something that is pro- 33 duced by the sovereign machine rather than something that pre-exists it. On this 34 view, bare life is neither synonymous with zoe nor bios but rather a form of life that 35 occupies a zone of indistinction between the two: a form of life that disrupts the 36 zoebios dichotomy with which the relationship between politics and life is usually 37 studied. Agamben fuses Schmitts approach to sovereignty as the decision on the 38 exception with Benjamins notion of the permanence of the state of exceptional- 39 ism, and Jean-Luc Nancys understanding of the ban. In summary, bare life is a 40 form of life that is amenable to

the sway of sovereign power because it is banned 41 from the realm of law and politics: an abandonment that takes place whenever 42 and wherever the law is suspended. The use of the concept of the ban is signifi- 43 cant here: bare life is not simply
excluded from this realm but rather maintained 44 in what Agamben calls an inclusive exclusion. If someone is banned from a 45 community she continues to have a relationship with that community: indeed it 46 is precisely because of the ban that they are still nevertheless linked to that com- 47 munity. Sovereign power produces bare life as a banned form of life because its 48 undecidable juridical political status allows for the routinization of exceptional 49 practices such as detainment without trial, torture, and even execution. 50 In the conclusion to Homo Sacer: Sovereign Power and Bare Life (1998), Agamben 51 claims that any attempt to re-conceptualize the nomos of the West must take into 52 account the fact that we no longer know anything of the classical distinction 53 between zoe and bios, between private life and political existence, between man as 54 a simple living being at home in the house and mans political existence in the 55 city (Agamben 1998:187). On the one hand, the production of bare

life in zones of indistinction upon which sovereign power depends is perhaps most visi- 2 ble in camps designated for that purpose. On the other hand, Agamben also
3 points to the way in which the production of zones of indistinction, where excep- 4 tional activities become the rule and bare life is subject only to the whims of sov- 5 ereign power, is more and more widespread or generalized in world politics. 6 Under biopolitical conditions in which the paradigm of security has become 7 the normal technique of government, Agamben argues that the blurring of the 8 citizen, and the bare life of homo sacer is not something that is localized or 9 encumbered by traditional limits: Living in the state of exception that has now 10 become the rule has...meant this: our private body has now become indistin- 11 guishable from our body politic (Agamben 2000:39). On the contrary, as Minca 12 has put it, there has been a normalization of a series of geographies of excep- 13 tionalism in Western societies throughout everyday life (Minca 2006:388). Con- 14 sequently, an Agambenian account of the activities of sovereign power 15 predicated upon the production of bare life offers provocative insights for any 16 attempt to re-think the relation between borders, territory and law, and develop 17 alternative imaginaries to the inside outside model.

The politics of the war on terror blur the distinction between land and law and legitimize biopolitics
(Nick Vaughan-Williams, 2008, Reader in International Security, and Deputy Director of Research in PAIS. Previously held Lectureships at the University of Exeter and the University of Wales, Aberystwyth. Studied Modern History at the University of Oxford, and then International Relations at the Universities of Warwick (MA) and Aberystwyth (PhD). International Political Sociology, Borders, territory, law http://www.socialsciences.manchester.ac.uk/disciplines/politics/research/reading/poststructuralism/docum ents/NVW.pdf, DS) Derek Gregory has pointed to the way in which the War on Terror unleashed in 24 the wake of the attacks on the World Trade Centre and Pentagon on 11 Septem- 25 ber 2001 has mobilized an array of legal formularies (Gregory 2006). Highlight- 26 ing the US subsequent portrayal of other states, including Afghanistan, Cuba, 27 Iran, Iraq, as threats to its national security, Gregory argues that most of the 28 emergencies and exceptional measures that have punctuated Bushs presidency 29 fold the national into the transnational (Gregory 2006:407; emphasis

added). 30 Such

a folding is reminiscent of the topology of the Mo bius strip that Agamben 31 draws upon in order to reorient his conception of the way in which sovereign 32 power operates across a global biopolitical terrain. Moreover,
this spatial imagi- 33 nary, though not free of difficulties as Bigo (2007) has pointed out, seems partic- 34 ularly apposite for thinking about how the UNs legal argumentation in relation 35 to the situation of detainees at Guanta namo Bay indicates the complexity of the 36 contemporary relation between borders, territory, and law. The arguments 37

deployed by the UN illustrate how the War on Terror has perhaps intensified the 38 folding to which Gregory refers, which certainly complicates a straightforward 39 inside outside way of mapping the relation between borders, territory, and law. 40 Further still, such folding is not merely conceptual but above all
lived, for exam- 41 ple through the bodies and experiences of those detained at the US naval base in 42 Cuba. In contrast to the ideal of the modern sovereign subject, autonomous or 43 bordered before the law like the state of which it is a citizen, the detainees sta- 44 tus is fundamentally indistinct and it is precisely the production of this fuzziness 45 that, as Agamben has demonstrated, the logic of sovereign power depends upon. 46 However, as Gregory emphasizes, there is also a sense in which the insideout47 side imaginary has always been something of a fiction and that folding of the 48 kind illustrated in the example of Guanta namo is not necessarily something 49 new at all: American attempts to decouple law and location have a much 50 longer history and do not derive uniquely from the global assertion of military 51 force (Gregory 2006:407). Indeed, pointing to the regulation of transnational 52 economic activities and the extension of rights to citizens of the US overseas, 53 there is a long history of a disaggregation of territorial limits and limits in law 54 (Gregory 2006:407). Nevertheless, whilst we are not necessarily witnessing either 55 the erasure of the logic of insideoutside or an entirely new departure in how this dichotomy is being played out, it is possible to identify ways in which, as Bali- bar puts it, borders are vacillating in contemporary political life: no longer at the border, an institutionalized site that could be materialized on the ground and inscribed on the map (Balibar 1998:217218). What

this demands, perhaps especially in the context of the War on Terror, is an incessant identification and perpetual deconstruction of diverse and multiple logics and practices of inside outside in order to highlight for interrogation what is enabled, legitimized, and often concealed by border politics.

AT Closing Gitmo Doesnt Solve

Closing the Guantanamo facility still solves for the dehumanization of the detainees even if we lose that the closure does not end the overall ontological phenomenon
SABY GHOSHRAY, Ph.d, Cornell University - S.C. Johnson Graduate School of Management, Florida International University, Vice President for Development and Compliance at WorldCompliance Company, He is the author of over 60 scholarly articles published in journals, books and conference proceedings, and continues his research on diverse subsets of international law, interface between domestic jurisprudence and international law, juvenile criminal law, military tribunals, and constitutional law, He has been writing and lecturing on the judicial treatment of Guantanamo detainees since his legal workshop presentation at the 17th International Conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law at The Hague in 2003, Spring 2011, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 163 GUANTNAMO: UNDERSTANDING THE NARRATIVE OF DEHUMANIZATION THROUGH THE LENS OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM AND DUALITY OF 9/11, http://www.scribd.com/doc/119301170/57Wayne-L-Rev-163-Guantanamo-Understanding-the-Narrative-of-Dehumanization-Through-the-Lens-ofAmerican-Exceptionalism-Saby-Ghoshray When we talk about erasure, it is intrinsically linked to the temporal aspect of the phenomenological evolution of time and space in that erasure is a process that attains its meaning through permanency. While I appreciate Professor Ahmads invocation of human erasure in the context of Guantnamo for providing a much needed interpretive gloss, I remain unsure whether erasure necessarily can be associated with dehumanization at Guantnamo. While the very process of dehumanization continued unabated for the intensity of state violence on subjugated prisoners unquestioned and attempted destruction of individuals physical constructs perhaps unparalleled in post-modernity, the damage might only be described in temporary terms. Despite the harshest of conditions imposed on the

detainees, human resilience surely has won against dehumanization attempts to eventually overcome extra-ordinary odds to retain their old constructs. For the construct might get erased temporarily, but if the temporal length of the dehumanization process is short, it must retain its pristine construct when the prior conditions are restored. In this context, the process of restoration comes in various forms, such as eventual release or relaxation of the harshest of conditions.
Therefore, I look at this dehumanization as a temporary erasure as I construe the process as a suspension. I do this with conviction borne out of hope, because I want to end with hopehope for humanity. Erasure is giving up .Erasure is painting a dark picture for humanity. But temporary erasure brings in the harbinger of aspiration that wrongs will be righted, that this very phenomenon of

Guantnamo will be rehabilitated.

AT: Gitmo Not Bad

Guantanamo Not bad
AlterNet, 2009 (Alternet, Top 5 Myths About Closing Guantanamo, AlterNet, 1/27/09,
http://www.alternet.org/story/122895/top_5_myths_about_closing_guantanamo?page=0%2C0) MYTH #1 -- GUANTANAMO IS A GREAT PLACE TO BE: Conservatives often try to argue that life at Guantanamo is just fine. Reacting to Obama's executive order, House

Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) said that detainees there receive "more comforts than a lot of Americans get." In December, Vice President Cheney argued that Guantanamo "has been very well run." Neither of these claims are true. The Washington Post recently revealed that the top Bush administration official in charge of deciding whether to prosecute detainees concluded that Mohammed al-Qahtani was tortured by the U.S. military at Guantanamo. The detention center was so poorly run that Obama administration officials are now finding out that Bush officials never kept comprehensive case files on many detainees.

I-Law Advantage

Gitmo Internal
Breaks international law
DeGarmo 11 (Denise, professor of international relations at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
located across the river from St. Louis Missouri. I received my PhD in international relations with a specialty in security from the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor. I am currently the chair of the Department of Political Science at SIUE and I am the coordinator of the Peace and International Studies minor. I love to travel and just returned from a 10 day trip to the West Bank Palestine, For U.S. Policy, Torture is Never Acceptable July 22, http://www.policymic.com/articles/1648/for-u-s-policy-torture-isnever-acceptable)

The use of torture to gain intelligence is never acceptable. Torture is prohibited under domestic laws of most countries in the international system. It is also prohibited under international law. Torture is considered a human rights violation according to Article 5 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions, and under the United Nations Convention Against Torture. There is no scientific evidence to support claims that torture is an effective interrogation tool. Cheney authorized the use of torture (including waterboarding) as a way to gain intelligence. He readily
admits authorizing these techniques in interviews with various news organizations, recognizing full well that the use of torture violates the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Convention on Torture documents that the U.S. is a party to. Cheney was not alone in his advocacy of the use of torture. As Professor of Law

Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld also participated in the highest level of decision-making that sanctioned the extrajudicial execution of high valued operatives. In his Special Access Program (SAP), Rumsfeld authorized the Defense Department to set up a clandestine team of special forces to snatch and/or assassinate anyone considered a 'high value' Al-Qaeda operative anywhere in the world. Willful killing such as that described in SAP is a direct breach of the Geneva Conventions, which characterizes willful killing as a war crime.
Majorie Cohn says, Rumsfeld also sanctioned the use of torture, as well as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment of captives to gain what he deemed important intelligence. Use of dogs, removal of clothing, hooding, stress positions, isolation for up to 30 days, 20-hour interrogations, waterboarding, deprivation of light and auditory stimuli, use of physical coercion, and sexual humiliation were common methods to extract information from prisoners.

The law is clear. Torture is

illegal under international law. Article 3 of the Geneva Convention states that all manner of murder, mutilation, cruel treatment,
and torture are prohibited at any time or place whatsoever. The United Nations Convention on Torture prohibits the use of torture for obtaining information or a confession or as a source of punishment for any act.

Gitmo Internal Lease

The lease itself is in violation with international law, only doing the plan fully complies with international law
Danwall 4 (Hanna Danwall, faculty of law in public international law at the University of Lund.
Guantanamo Bay, a legal black hole? University of Lund, Spring 2004, http://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=1556904&fileOId=1564143) Cuba claims that the United States holds Guantanamo Bay illegally and while doing so they represent a permanent threat to Cubas sovereignty. Cuba also claims that the lease lacks legal existence and judicial validity. 39 Even if the lease should be considered to be

valid, Cuba would have the right to cancel the lease since it is not a real lease40, as a real lease is temporal to its nature, which the lease of Guantanamo Bay clearly is not. According to Cuba it is obvious that the United States never
intends to terminate the lease and this lack of intention gives Cuba the right to immediately cancel the lease.41 Another factor that Cuba claims give them the right to cancel the lease is the fact that the United States is violating the purpose stated in the Treaty of 1934. The purpose, as stated in the treaty is to fortify the relations of friendship between the two countries.42 According to international law the lessee must follow the

contract and use the leased territory according to the purpose stated in the contract, since the consent to the agreement is based on that purpose. Not to do so would be a violation to the in international law accepted Clausula rebus sic stantibus. Clausula rebus sic
stantibus refers to the silent or explicit reservation in an agreement, by which the continued validity of the agreements presupposes that the circumstances, which prevailed at the conclusion of the agreement, do not considerably change. The foundation for the contract was to strengthen the friendship between the two peoples. That foundation has according to Cuba disappeared as the naval base has become an instrument of aggression and consequently does not represent friendship. As a result, the purpose of the base has been substantially altered and according to the Clausula rebus sic stantibus the agreement is not valid anymore. 43 On July 26 1962, Fidel Castro made a policy statement concerning Guantanamo Bay where he declared that: Cuba has not wavered nor will it ever waver in its determination to recover the land for its people, exercising its sovereignty according to international legal resources at the proper time. Caimanera44 is Cuban. As Cuban as the mothers who have wept over the crimes committed there.45 In 1961 Cuba stopped cashing in the annual fee that they, according to article I of the Supplementary Agreement of 190346, receives from the United States. This was done on the ground that the United States should not retain possession of Guantanamo Bay.47 In 1964 Cuba ceased to supply water to the naval base in Guantanamo Bay, forcing the United States to install water purification plants.48

US in violation of International Law

HRW 2011(Human Rights Watch, international non-governmental organization that conducts research
and advocacy on human right; US: Prolonged Indefinite Detention Violates International Law; 1-24-11; http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/01/24/us-prolonged-indefinite-detention-violates-international-law)

The prolonged indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay violates US obligations under international law. The Bush
administration claimed unfettered power to detain persons on the basis of the president's role as commander-in-chief, which the Supreme Court rejected in 2008 in Boumediene v. Bush. The Obama administration has sought to justify indefinite detention without trial under authority of the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted in 2001, which permits the president to use all necessary and appropriate force against al Qaeda and other organizations and individuals involved in the 9/11 attacks. The administration has also stated that its detention policies are "informed by principles of the laws of war." The laws of war provide for the detention of

prisoners-of-war and civilians who pose an imperative security risk during international armed conflicts - that is, conflicts between states. Guantanamo detainees
apprehended during the international armed conflict in Afghanistan that began in 2001 should have been treated in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and repatriated to Afghanistan after the Karzai government was created in 2002, ending the inter-state conflict, or prosecuted for war crimes. Also applicable during international armed conflicts is international human rights law, but the laws of war may take precedence as the more specific law (lex specialis). During non-international armed

conflicts, such as the current civil war in Afghanistan or other fighting between states and non-state armed groups, persons who take up arms or are otherwise involved in rebel activity may be detained and prosecuted in accordance with domestic laws. Such individuals are entitled to due process rights provided by international human rights law, which allows for some reductions in protections during declared public emergencies. Although the Obama administration has abandoned the phrase "global war on terror," it continues to assert the authority to pick up and detain anyone anywhere in the world in accordance with the laws of war. However, individuals apprehended in situations not amounting to armed conflict, that is, outside a traditional battlefield, do not fall within the realm of the laws of war. They instead must be detained and prosecuted according to domestic law and international human rights la

Gitmo close solves International Law

Jamail 2012 (Dahr Jamail, writer and news producer for Al Jazeera English, correspondent for the War
on Terror; Guantanamo: A legacy of shame; 11-22-12; Al Jazeera; http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/11/2012112281516833917 )
"People

in the US should care deeply about the fact that the US government is refusing to comply with international law," Prasow said. "It has implications for the treatment of everyone around the world. What will this government do when it

won't comply with basic legal requirements?" Like Nevin and Wright, Prasow points out how the

treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo is also a basic national security concern. "When the US treats people as if they are not human, there are very real implications on how the rest of the world perceives the US," she added. Nevertheless, Prasow is not holding her breath that anyone in the US is going to be prosecuted for the blatant violations of international law that have occurred at Guantanamo. But she felt there are things that the Obama administration should indeed do. "The president could create a bi-partisan commission to investigate the extent of what has happened and expose the Human Rights violations. Only by that will people see the extent of what has happened and why it is so important that we never go back to that again," she said. "When
former Bush administration officials travel around the world they should be investigated and prosecuted under those countries domestic laws." But how likely is that to happen? "The greatest tragedy of the

Obama administration is that they continue to use the state secrets privilege,"
Prasow said. "These ongoing lawsuits have been dismissed because of the state secrets privilege, and there's no justification for that." She thinks the reality is that it is impossible for a former

detainee, who is entitled to compensation under international law, to be awarded their rightful compensation in the US primarily because of US law and the state secrets privilege the Obama administration continues to exercise. According to Prasow, the Obama administration, under international law, is required to afford people redress for ill-treatment. "But that has not been afforded
them," she added. "And it should." Prasow, like Judge Gibbons, said there is a very simple legal method that could and should be used to close Guantanamo. "You can prosecute these people in US

federal courts, and then release the others who are not prosecuted," she said. "The Obama administration could do this. That is precisely how you close Guantanamo, by following the law."

Guantanamo must close solve international law

Eviatar 2013 (Daphne Eviatar, Senior Counsel in Human Rights Firsts Law and Security Program;
Obama can close Guantanamo; 5-1-13; Reuters; http://blogs.reuters.com/greatdebate/2013/05/01/obama-can-close-guantanamo/)

Theres no question that the situation at Guantanamo Bay has grown desperate and must be addressed quickly. This week the military confirmed that 100 of the 166 men there are on hunger strike officially starving themselves to death. Twenty-one are being force-fed strapped to a chair with a tube snaked up their nose and
pumping Ensure into their stomachs - a violation of medical ethical guidelines, according to the American Medical Association, the International Committee for the Red Cross and the World Medical Association. Meanwhile, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi

Pillay, recently called the continued operation of the Guantanamo prison a clear breach of international law. The prison camp is also, as Obama acknowledged on Tuesday, costly for U.S. taxpayers. The U.S. government pays about
$800,000 per detainee per year to keep the 166 men imprisoned at Guantanamo. In contrast, the secure

imprisonment of a criminal convicted in a U.S. federal court costs about $30,000. Obama was right when he said on Tuesday that the situation at Guantanamo is not sustainable. The notion that were going to continue to keep over a hundred individuals in a no-mans-land in perpetuity, he said, even at a time when weve wound down the war in Iraq, were winding down the war in Afghanistan, were having success defeating al Qaeda core, weve kept the pressure up on all these transnational terrorist networks, when weve transferred detention authority in Afghanistan - the idea that we would still maintain forever a group of individuals who have not been tried - that is contrary to who we are, it is contrary to our interests and it needs to stop. The president also needs to stop blaming

Congress for his failure to do what is within his power: shuttering the prison.
Some lawmakers have certainly made it difficult for him to make good on his pledge to close the detention center, but as he acknowledged on Tuesday, there are steps he can take now to move toward that goal.

Gitmo Internal War

Another reason Guantanamo is about to be illegal ending combat operations in Afghanistan
HRF 12 (Human Rights First, December 2012, independent advocacy and action organization that
challenges America to live up to its ideals, How to close Guantanamo, Online, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf, page 1, accessed 7/27/13) PE The imperative to close Guantanamo has increased as the United States prepares for the end of major combat operations in Afghanistanthe conflict in which most of the Guantanamo detainees were captured a decade or more ago. The United States is already transitioning detention operations in Afghanistan to the Afghans. By closing Guantanamo, the Obama Administration will align its policy objectives with a forward-looking post-war counterterrorism strategy that does not depend on maintaining active military detention facilities. Moreover, Guantanamo

detainees are being held under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which provides detention authority only while hostilities are ongoing.
As major combat operations in Afghanistan come to an end and the secretary of defense and other national security officials talk of the strategic defeat of core al Qaeda, courts are likely to take

a renewed interest in whether there remains authority to hold Guantanamo detainees. Closing Guantanamo will help to place counterterrorism policies on a more stable and durable legal footing.

Gitmo Internal UN
The UN wants Guantanamo Bay closed down to comply with international law
Dowdle 13 (Patrick Dowdle is a contributor to the Pace International Law Review, a forum part of the
Pace University School of Law. Guantanamo Bay: Open for Business Apr 6th, 2013 http://pilr.blogs.law.pace.edu/2013/04/06/guantanamo-bay-open-for-business/)

Navi Pillay, the UN high commissioner for human rights, issued a statement
denouncing the detention of the 86 men in Guantanamo Bay who have been cleared for release. Pillay claims that the United States is exercising, the most flagrant breach of individual rights and a clear breach of international law. Pillay also requested that human rights experts be allowed to meet with the 86 detainees. She stated, I am deeply disappointed that the US government has not been able to close Guantanamo Bay [prison] It severely undermines the United States stancewhen addressing human rights violations elsewhere. Reports indicate that only six detainees at Gitmo are facing trial. More than half of the prisoners have been cleared for release, and some of the prisoners have been in Gitmo for over a decade. President Obama promised to close the prison soon into his first term, but Congress passed a law prohibiting the transfer of Gitmo detainees to the United States and requiring security guarantees before they can be transferred anywhere else. Congress has cited security concerns as a major reason: Yemeni citizens-who make up the vast majority of those in a state of limbo-cannot return home. The hunger strike, that began two months ago at Gitmo, has snowballed and is up to at least forty men. Eleven of these protesters have lost so much weight that they are being force-fed liquid nutrients through feeding tubes. Pillay has shown sympathy for the detainees, saying, It is scarcely surprising that peoples frustrations boil over and they resort to such desperate measures. What influence will the UNs statements have on the U.S. as it is faced with decisions related to the operation of Gitmo? Do you think Congress is correct for taking such precautions when dealing with these prisoners, or is the United States simply violating international law through this arbitrary detention?

The UN supports the plan

UN 9 (UN News Centre. Ban welcomes US decision to close Guantnamo Bay detention centre 23
January 2009, http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=29644&Cr=united+states&Cr1=Human+ rights#.Ue1ueI1OSSo Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today welcomed the decision by United States President Barack Obama to begin the process of closing the detention facility in Guantnamo Bay. Echoing a statement issued yesterday by UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay, Mr. Ban also hailed the new US leaders orders to review detention policies and introduce measures to ensure lawful interrogations, as well as the Administrations ban on certain types of interrogation. The United Nations has previously called for the closure of the Guantnamo Bay detention facility, and is encouraged that President Obama has given the highest priority to ensuring respect for fundamental rights, Mr. Bans spokesperson said in a statement. Mr. Ban also said

he looks forward to working with all UN Member States to tackle terrorism while fully respecting international human rights obligations. Also welcoming yesterdays signing of the executive orders by Mr. Obama, two UN independent human rights experts stressed that the US Government should fully respect all human rights obligations, including the prohibition of torture and the non-refoulement principle that forbids removing people to countries where they could be tortured. Leandro Despouy, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, and Manfred Nowak, the Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, stressed that they are prepared to lend their full support to settling outstanding issues, especially those in relation to closing the

Guantnamo facilities.

UN chief advocates the closure of Gitmo for US compliance with international law
Reuters 13 (Stephanie Nebehay of Reuters. UN says US violating international law, calls for closure
of Guantanamo, Reuters, April 5th, 2013, http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/05/17617277un-says-us-violating-international-law-calls-for-closure-of-guantanamo?lite)

The UN human rights chief called on the United States on Friday to close down the Guantanamo Bay prison camp, saying the indefinite imprisonment of many detainees without charge or trial violated international law. Navi Pillay said the
hunger strike being staged by some inmates at the Guantanamo Bay U.S. Naval Base in southeastern Cuba was a "desperate act" but "scarcely surprising." "We must be clear about this: The United States is in clear breach not just of its own commitments but also of international laws and standards that it is obliged to uphold," the UN high commissioner for human rights said in a statement. About half of the 166 detainees there have been cleared for transfer either to home countries or third countries for resettlement, Pillay said. "As a first step, those who have been cleared for release must be released," she said. "Others reportedly have been designated for further indefinite detention. Some of them have been festering in this detention center for more than a decade," she said.

Of the 166 detainees, only nine have been charged with or convicted of crimes.
Forty inmates are currently staging a hunger strike to protest against their indefinite detention, according to a U.S. military spokesman at Guantanamo. Some have lost so much weight that they are being forcefed liquid nutrients.

Closure Key
Guantanamo Bay breaks international treaties and violates UN human rights Action key
Diplomacist 13 (The Diplomacist is an online journal published by the Cornell International Affairs
Review. The Case to Close Guantanamo, April 18, 2013, http://www.ciartest.diplomacist.org/?p=3360) During his 2008 Presidential Campaign, then-Presidential hopeful Barack Obama assured the American public that the American military detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba would be shut down within the first year of his presidency. On January 22, 2009, shortly after taking office, Obama signed an executive order stating that authorized the use of an alternative detention facility in Illinois, and mandated the closure of detention facilities at Guantanamo Bay Naval Base. Four years later, the excessive brutality of the American military at Guantanamo continues. Opened up in 2002, the base holds a variety of prisoners, largely accused of crimes related to terrorism, captured in the aftermath of the Bush administrations exuberant and trigger-happy push to eliminate global terrorism. An independent task force published a report earlier this week made it clear that it is indisputable that the United States engaged in the practice of torture. The task force classified the US prison facility as abhorrent and intolerable, andas several human rights activists have in the pastimplored President Obama to shut down the controversial prison. Earlier this week, The New York Times published an op-ed narrated by a Guantanamo prisoner on hunger strike. Samir Naji al Hasan Moqbel and 51 other prisoners at the facility have been on a hunger strike. This is out of a mere 166 men officially held at Guantanamo. Hasan Moqbel claims he has been detained at Guantanamo for 11 years and three months. I have never been charged with any crime. I have never received a trial. The entire process involved in the establishment and functioning of the facility at Guantanamo Bay is appalling. Bushs Patriot Act, its consequent drive to imprison any remotely suspicious citizens, and the glaring contraventions of international treaties is outrageous. For an administration that so aggressively pushes its agenda of freedom, equality and fairness on the world, the American government has forever remained oddly hypocritical with regards to Guantanamo Bay. The prison explicitly violates the UN Declaration on Human Rights by denying hearings and torturing prisoners. The illegality of detentions is ironic, given the strong civil liberties and rule of law in the United States. The legal status of the prisoners is that of illegal enemy combatants, ambiguously placing them in a state of limbo between criminal and prisoner of war. Simply put, Guantanamo represents an America of the past: cornered, intimidated and trigger-happy in the aftermath of the brutal 9/11 attacks. President Obama sold himself to Americans as a harbinger of change and hope, representing a quantum leap from the dark days of the Bush regime. He has shown he can talk the talk. Its about time he walk the walk.

Closing Guantanamo Bay allows the US to comply with international law

Bowcott 13 (Owen Bowcott, legal affairs correspondent for The Guardian. Guantnamo Bay force
feeding inhuman and degrading, says UN The Guardian, 2 May 2013, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/02/guantanamo-bay-force-feeding-inhuman-un)

Force feeding hunger strikers in Guantnamo Bay is against international medical standards and should be stopped, according to a group of senior UN officials. The human rights experts also warned that indefinite detention of suspects at the US prison camp in Cuba constituted "cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment" and should end, in a statement released through the UN's office of the high commissioner for human rights. The declaration has been published in response to the hunger strike that started in February and involves up to 100 detainees. At least 21 are being forcibly fed. The statement
says: "According to the World Medical Assembly's Declaration of Malta, in cases involving people on hunger strikes, the duty of medical personnel to act ethically and the principle of respect for individuals' autonomy, among other principles, must be respected. "Under these principles, it is unjustifiable to engage in forced feeding of individuals contrary to their informed and voluntary refusal of such a measure. Moreover, hunger strikers should be protected from all forms of coercion, even more so when this is done through force and in some cases through physical violence. "Healthcare personnel may not apply undue pressure of any sort on individuals who have opted for the extreme recourse of a hunger strike. Nor is it acceptable to use threats of forced feeding or other types of physical or psychological coercion against individuals who have voluntarily decided to go on a hunger strike." The statement is signed by El Hadji Malick Sow, chair of the UN working group on arbitrary detention; Juan E Mndez, UN special rapporteur on torture; Ben Emmerson, UN special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of human rights, and Anand Grover, UN special rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. It is supported by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. The experts pointed out that: "The

Guantnamo detainees' lack of legal protection and the resulting anguish caused by the uncertainty regarding their future has led them to take the extreme step of a hunger strike to demand a real change to their situation." Their continuing detention was "a flagrant violation of international human rights law and in itself constitutes a form of cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment". The Inter-American Commission on
Human Rights, said: "We have received specific information regarding the severe and prolonged physiological and psychological damage caused by the detainees' high degree of uncertainty over basic aspects of their lives, such as not knowing whether they will be tried or whether they will be released and when; or whether they will see their family members again." Emmerson drew attention to the fact that the US government had admitted there were at least 86 prisoners who had been cleared for transfer. "In other words," he noted, "all relevant security-related government agencies or authorities have expressly certified that those detainees do not represent a threat to US security." The UN experts called on the US to either charge or release the detainees. Washington should "adopt

all legislative, administrative, judicial, and any other types of measures necessary to prosecute, with full respect for the right to due process, the individuals being held at Guantnamo naval base or, where appropriate, to provide for their immediate release or transfer to a third country, in accordance with international law."

Impact Genocide
International law discredits warmongers, dis-incentivizing future conflict and genocide
Akhavan 01 (Payam, Professor of Human Rights at McGill University, Beyond Impunity: Can
International Criminal Justice Prevent Future Atrocities? American Society of International Law, January, http://www.asil.org/ajil/recon2.pdf) Contrary to the simplistic myths of primordial tribal hatred, the conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda were not expressions of spontaneous blood lust or inevitable historical cataclysms. Both conflicts resulted from the deliberate incitement of ethnic

hatred and violence by which ruthless demagogues and warlords elevated themselves to positions of absolute power. At a volatile transition stage, the calculated manipulation of fears and tensions unleashed a self-perpetuating spiral of violence in which thousands of citizens became the unwitting instruments of unscrupulous political elites questing after supremacy. Against such a backdrop, the removal of leaders with criminal dispositions and a vested interest in conflict makes a positive contribution to post-conflict peace building. In concert with other policy measures, resort to international criminal tribunals can play a significant role in discrediting and containing destabilizing political forces. Stigmatizing delinquent leaders through indictment, as well as apprehension and prosecution, undermines their influence. Even if wartime leaders still enjoy popular support among an indoctrinated public at home, exclusion from the international sphere can significantly impede their long-term exercise of power. Failure to deliver on promises of economic growth and prosperity, together with the humiliation
of pariah status in an interdependent world community, eventually exacts a cost on such leaders influence and authority. Moreover, political climates and fortunes change, and the seemingly invincible leaders of today often become the fugitives of tomorrow. Whether their downfall comes

through political overthrow or military defeat, the vigilance of international criminal justice will ensure that their crimes do not fall into oblivion, undermining the prospect of an easy escape or future political rehabilitation. A postconflict culture of justice also makes moral credibility a valuable political asset for victim groups, rendering vengeance less tempting and more costly. Of course, the preventive effects of international criminal justice can extend beyond post-conflict peace building in directly affected countries. The prosecution and related political demise of such leaders sends a message that the cost of ethnic hatred and violence as an instrument of power outweighs its benefits. Precedents of accountability, however
selective and limited, contribute to the transformation of a culture of impunity that has hitherto implied the political acceptability of massive human rights abuses.

Impact Laundry List

International law solves for laundry list of impacts
United Nations 08 (Understanding International Law, United Nations Treaty Collection,
http://treaties.un.org/doc/source/events/2008/Press_kit/fact_sheet_5_english.pdf) WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF INTERNATIONAL LAW? Without it, there could be chaos. International law sets up a framework based on States as the principal actors in the international legal system, and it defines their legal responsibilities in their conduct with each other, and, within State boundaries, with their treatment of individuals. Its domain encompasses human

rights, disarmament, international crime, refugees, migration, problems of nationality, the treatment of prisoners, the use of force, and the conduct of war, among others. It also regulates the global commons, such as the environment, sustainable development, international waters, outer space, global communications and world trade. WITH SO MUCH CONFLICT IN THE WORLD,
HOW CAN THIS REALLY WORK? International law does work, at times invisibly and yet successfully. World trade and the global economy depend on it, as it regulates

the

activities required to conduct business across borders, such as financial transactions and transportation of goods. There are treaties for roads, highways, railroads,
civil aviation, bodies of water and access to shipping for States that are landlocked. And as new needs arise, whether to prevent or punish terrorist acts or to regulate e-commerce, new treaties are being developed. DOES INTERNATIONAL TREATY LAW IMPINGE ON A

NATIONS SOVEREIGNTY? To become party to a treaty, a State must express, through a concrete act, its willingness to undertake the legal rights and obligations contained in the treaty it must consent to be bound by the treaty. It can do this in various
ways, defined by the terms of the relevant treaty.

Customary international law also provides for set of principles, protects laundry list
Weeramantry et al, 05 (Judge Christopher, former vice president of the International Court of
Justice, International Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson, The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, July, http://lcnp.org/global/Law_and_Peace.pdf) Customary international law and general principles of law draw on all the cultures of the world to generate concepts, principles and rules to govern new situations as they arise. International law

draws upon this vast reservoir for humanity-protecting and future-regarding principles like trusteeship of the earth's resources, conservation, protection of the environment and of health and welfare, duties to the community of nations, and obligations erga omnes (towards all people). When the Nuclear Weapons Case 7 was heard before the International Court of Justice in 1995, one of the

arguments made by the nuclear powers was that there was no treaty provision expressly prohibiting the use of nuclear weapons. This illustrates the common fallacy that international law is only treaty law . It loses sight of the fact that apart from treaty law there is a vast range of principles which prohibit such destructive weapons principles against genocide, principles against the killing of civilian populations, principles against the use of weapons that are cruel and inflict severe suffering and hardship, environmental principles protecting the rights of future generations, and so forth.

International law solves nuclear war, environmental degradation, and economic decline
Mullerson 89 (R. A., Head of the Department of International Law Institute of State and Law of the
Academy of Sciences of the USSR, The American Journal of International Law, 83 A.J.I.L. 494, July)

In spite of different class approaches to social problems and different schools of thought, there is only one worldwide science of international law. New global problems challenging humanity -- the threat of nuclear holocaust, environmental crises, economic difficulties of the Third World -- can be solved only by all states acting together, by the common efforts of all nations. In the contemporary world, interests and values common to all mankind must prevail over the interests of single nations, parties or social classes. Moreover, I think that nowadays values and interests common to all mankind cannot be contrary to the interests of individual states. Avoidance of nuclear holocaust, disarmament, the resolution of environmental problems and mutually beneficial cooperation between nations in all fields of human activity are in the interest of all. Too often, when statesmen or politicians speak of the national
interest and justify their actions by the notion of national interest, they are not talking about genuine national interest but, rather, about the self-interest of certain influential groups.

Impact Nuclear War

International law key to current protections against nuclear war
Weeramantry et al, 05 (Judge Christopher, former vice president of the International Court of
Justice, International Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson, The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, July, http://lcnp.org/global/Law_and_Peace.pdf) The International Court of Justice and Nuclear Weapons: Unlike the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes individuals, the International Court of Justice, often called the World Court, resolves disputes among states. The World Court has another function: it provides advisory opinions on legal questions posed by UN bodies. In a creative use of this function, in the early 1990s the World Health

Organization and the UN General Assembly asked the court for its advice on the legality of use and threatened use of nuclear weapons. Developing countries had condemned nuclear weapons for decades in resolutions in the General Assembly, but the nuclear-armed countries had voted against and ignored the resolutions. So taking a suggestion from civil society groups led by the
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the International Association of Lawyers Against Nuclear Arms and the International Peace Bureau (a network of peace groups), non-

nuclear countries turned to the World Court. Civil society - some 700 groups globally - lobbied in New York and Geneva and in capitals around the world for the adoption of the requests for the court's opinion by the General Assembly and the World Health Organization. Then civil society assisted governments in preparing their presentations to the Court. Two weeks of dramatic hearings were heard before the Court in The Hague in November 1995. 11 It took the Court almost a year to issue its opinion. By and large, it was a victory for the prodisarmament forces. The Court held that the threat or use of nuclear weapons is generally contrary to international law prohibiting the infliction of indiscriminate harm, unnecessary suffering and disproportionate damage to the environment. (In separate opinions, Judge Weeramantry and two other judges went further and said that threat or use in all circumstances is illegal). Also, and unexpectedly, the Court, interpreting the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and other international instruments, held unanimously that there exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations on nuclear disarmament in all its aspects. While the opinion has not served to instantaneously change the entrenched policies of the nuclear-armed states, it has become a central part of advocacy for reduction and elimination of nuclear arsenals by states in the United Nations and
meetings to review the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and by civil society groups worldwide.

International law prevents cross-cultural conflicts, solves extinction from nuclear war
Weeramantry et al, 05 (Judge Christopher, former vice president of the International Court of
Justice, International Law and Peace: A Peace Lesson, The Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, July, http://lcnp.org/global/Law_and_Peace.pdf)

International law is an essential tool for the abolition of war. War has been a part of the human condition for thousands of years, but its abolition is now a necessity. With weapons of mass destruction becoming ever more readily available to state and non-state actors, the threat to a peaceful world being dragged into catastrophic conflict is so great that civilization itself is in peril. Misunderstanding and cross cultural ignorance are among the root causes of war. While global forces demolish geographical barriers and move the world toward a unified economy, clashes among cultures can have damaging impact on peace. International law draws upon the principles of peace expressed by great peacemakers and embodied in ancient writings, religions, and disciplines, and places them in the social and political context of today to dissipate the clouds of prejudice, ignorance and vested interests that stand in the way of world peace and harmony.

Impact Peace
International Law promotes relations between states
Cutler 97 (A. Claire Cutler, Professor of International Law and Relations in the Political Science
Department at the University of Victoria; Artifice, Ideology and Paradox: The Public/Private Distinction in International Law; Summer 1997; Taylor & Francis, Ltd, Article) The distinction between public and private international law operates at two levels. At one level the distinction operates as a separation of academic subjects; at another level it operates as a separation of legal doctrines (Paul, 1988). In terms of subject matter, public international law deals with

matters relating to states, international organizations, and, to a very limited extent, corporations and individuals that raise 'an international legal interest'.4In contrast, private international law refers to conflict or choice of law principles that determine the appropriate jurisdictional norms to apply to individual claims involving a foreign element or foreign persons (Paul, 1988: 150). Private international law also includes international commercial transactions relating to 'domestic and international regulation of foreign investment and the movement of goods and workers across national borders'.5
Fox (1992: 351, 357) defines 'private international law' as 'rules which govern the choice of law in private matters (such as business contracts, marriage, etc.) when those questions arise in an international context, e.g., will country A enforce the divorce granted under the laws of country B'. 'Public international

law', in contrast, is defined as 'law dealing with the relationship between states'. As Paul (1988: 163, 150) notes, private international law 'is about private interests engaged in private transactions (and not about the exercise of public power)'; it 'excludes questions of international public policy, such as the role of multinationals on social and economic development or the effect of international arbitration clauses on the enforcement of domestic antitrust laws'. International public policy concerns are the domain of public international law, for it is states which are deemed to be authoritative agents in the exercise of public power in international affairs. Doctrinally, private and public
international law are treated as separate. Private international laws derive largely from municipal legal systems, while public international law derives from international sources.6 However, while many of the principles of private international law are separate and distinct from those of public international law, often deriving from domestic or municipal law, the doctrinal status of private international law is contested. Legal theorists disagree about the status of private international law. As will be explained below, Anglo-American theorists have traditionally expressed doubts that private international law is anything more than domestic or municipal law. In contrast, European scholars regard private international law as an integral part of public international law.

-- Now Key
US pushing for peace talks, now key
CBS/Associated Press 7-25 (Israelis, Palestinians to meet in U.S. Next Week for Talks, CBS/AP,
2013, http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57595437/israelis-palestinians-to-meet-in-u.s-next-weekfor-talks/) An Israeli and a Palestinian official say preliminary peace talks -- agreed to after a shuttle mission by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry -- are to begin in Washington on Tuesday. Israeli-Palestinian talks on the terms of a Palestinian state have been frozen for

five years, and both sides have low expectations of the new U.S. peace push. The two sides are still deeply divided on several issues, including the division of Jerusalem -- a holy city for both Jews and Muslims - and Israeli-built settlements on territory claimed by both. It's unclear if those disputes can be resolved in Washington. Israeli
Cabinet Minister Silvan Shalom says "there is a good chance" the preliminary talks will start on Tuesday. A Palestinian diplomat on Thursday confirmed the date, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter with journalists. Earlier this week Kerry called the resumption of talks "a significant and welcome step forward. "I think all of us know that candid private conversations are the very best way to preserve the time and the space for progress and understanding, when you face difficult complicated issues such as Mideast peace," Kerry said. Israeli Prime Minister

Benjamin Netanyahu seemed to lower expectations that a new push toward peace would succeed. He acknowledged that any peace negotiations with the Palestinians would be "tough."

Israeli Palestinian peace process reaching decisive point

UN Security Council 7-24 (Report on speech by Robert H. Serry, United Nations Special
Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process at a UN Security Council Meeting, Hope Mounts In Wake of Promising Opening In Middle East Peace Process, But Both Sides Must Make Tough Choices, Security Council Told; UN Special Coordinator Also Called Attention to Escalating Secretarian Threats, UN Security Council, Department of Public Information, 2013, http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/47d4e277b48d9d3685256ddc00612265/f4c811144ae216aa85257bb2003 f03db?OpenDocument)

Intense diplomatic activity to rekindle the peace process and achieve a twoState solution had reached a decisive point as Israelis and Palestinians had agreed, in principle, to return to the negotiating table, said the top United Nations Middle East official today during an open debate of the Security Council. Some very tough choices will be required from both sides in the period ahead, said Robert H. Serry, United Nations Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process. Yet, a resolution was critical for the fate of the region, which was witnessing a deepening crisis and humanitarian catastrophe in Syria and significant political developments in Egypt, he said. It was against that backdrop, he added, that a promising opening had emerged from the intense diplomatic efforts of United States

Secretary of State John Kerry and a number of partners. Those endeavours had led to the announcement that a basis had been established to resume direct final status negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, he said. Leadership, courage and responsibility would be needed on the part of both sides to sustain that push towards achieving the two-State solution, he continued. It was also
crucial to build on the opening offered by the Arab League ministerial committees reaffirmation of the Arab Peace Initiative and the active and concrete support pledged to the negotiations by European Union Foreign Ministers.

-- Uniqueness
Peace talks poised to be fruitless, lack of good faith over border baseline
Heller 7-21 (Aron, Associated Press Correspondent based in Jerusalem, Israelis, Palestinians Skeptical
About Peace Talks, The Washington Times, 2013, http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/jul/21/israelis-palestinians-skeptical-about-peacetalks/?page=all) e Mr. Abbas previously refused to negotiate with Israel so long as settlement

construction continued in part of his hoped-for state. Mr. Netanyahu countered by saying he would enter talks only without preconditions. The two sides are now set to hold more talks in Washington in coming days or weeks on the framework of negotiations, meaning a resumption of talks is not yet assured. Gaps remain on three issues Palestinians say need to be settled before talks can begin: the baseline for border talks, the extent of a possible Israeli settlement slowdown
and a timetable for releasing veteran Palestinian prisoners. The Palestinians want to establish a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and east Jerusalem, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast War. Mr.

Abbas seeks a commitment from Mr. Netanyahu that Israels pre-1967 border will serve as a baseline for negotiations, but the Israeli leader has refused to do so. Previous rounds of negotiations were conducted on those lines. Two Palestinian officials said Saturday that Mr. Abbas agreed to resume talks only after Mr. Kerry gave him a letter guaranteeing that the pre-1967 borders would serve as a baseline. The officials, privy to internal discussions, spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to brief the media. A Western official denied the 1967 borders would be the starting point for negotiators.

Soft Power Advantage

Soft Power Low

Contradicting values hurts US soft power
Wagner 9 (Coleman Wagner is a senior at the University of North Texas majoring in political science.
His studies focus on international relations and comparative government and politics. Soft Power and International Public Opinion: U.S Presidents and the Treatment of Prisoners of War 2009, http://web3.unt.edu/honors/eaglefeather/wp-content/2009/08/Wagner_Coleman.pdf) The traditional idea of power, often referred to as hard power, focuses on the use of military or economic coercion to obtain a particular outcome. Soft power differs from hard power in that the coercion normally associated with power becomes unnecessary. With soft power or co-optive power, one

country relies on its ability to convince another country to want the same things (Nye, 1990, p. 168). Nye poetically describes this in Soft Power: The Means to Success in World
Politics, writing, A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness want to follow it (2005, p. 5). In the context of foreign policy, an abundance of soft power can sway

other countries to emulate the United States and particularly the policies and goals of the United States, eliminating some of the frustrations of international politics (Nye, 2004, p. 17). Unlike hard power, originating from economic and
military power, soft power has a variety of unorthodox sources. Soft power is generally achieved through the attraction of culture, political values, and policies. First, culture vastly enhances the soft power of a nation. The standard of living, education, arts, sciences, and traditions of a nation attract or repulse people from across the globe. For example, scholars from around the world envy those who are awarded the opportunity to study in the United States (Zakaria, 2008). Second, soft power arises out of a nations political values. A nations ethics can either bolster or damage a countrys reputation. Although the values do not affect them personally, foreign peoples do hold

strong opinions about the values of the United States and, consequently, evaluate it based on those values. The United States beliefs in selfdetermination, democracy, and human rights bring positive attention to the country (Nye, 2005). Nye cites capital punishment and a lack of gun control as policies that are
harmful to our soft power (2005). Last, a nations policies (foreign and domestic) must match the values that the country claims to possess and promote. A country that fails to practice what it

preaches will not only fail to gain soft power, but it will most likely lose soft power. Activities that are perceived as illegitimate or hypocritical can drain soft power reserves while
cooperation, widely productive initiatives, and shared values can add to a countrys soft power (Nye, 2005; 2008). Soft power can be concerning for political decision makers because it can affect the success of foreign policies. Political leaders do not answer directly to foreign audiences, but these audiences can make or break the success of foreign policy initiatives. Specifically, if an audience thinks poorly

of the United States, that audience is unlikely to favor decisions of its own political leaders that support or assist U.S. objectives (Nye, 2005; 2008).

A2 Alt Cause PRISM

Not a Done Deal- no guarantees we will lose soft power due to PRISM
Arkedis 13 (Jim, Senior Fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute, DOD counter-terrorism analyst,
PRISM is Bad for American Soft Power June 19, 2013, The Atlantic, http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/06/prism-is-bad-for-american-soft-power/277015/)

It's not too late. The PATRIOT Act is up for reauthorization in 2015. In the context of a diminished threat, the White House still has time to push the public debate on still-hidden, controversial intelligence strategies (while safeguarding specific sources and methods).
Further, the administration should seek to empower the FISA court. Rather that defer to the Supreme Court to appoint its panel of judges, it would be better to have Senate-confirmable justices serving limited terms. President Obama has said Americans can't have 100 percent security

and 100 percent privacy. But you can have an honest public debate about that allows Americans to legitimately decide where to strike that balance. It's both the right thing to do and American foreign policy demands it.

Gitmo Internal
Guantanamo Bay kills U.S. influence and causes global public opinion on U.S to plummet
Fairfax 2007 (Fairfax Media Limited [ASX:FXJ] is a leading multi-platform media company in
Australasia. The group comprises metropolitan, rural, regional and community mastheads and serves its audiences through high-quality, independent journalism and offers dynamic venues for commerce and information. How the mighty are fallen http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/how-the-mighty-arefallen/2007/01/23/1169330868042.html) SJH

Global opinion on American foreign policy and the role of the US in world affairs, especially in the Middle East, has plunged to new lows, with overwhelming
condemnation of its handling of the war in Iraq. An authoritative BBC World Service survey of more than 26,000 people from 25 countries across Asia, Europe, Latin America and the Middle East shows that nearly three in four people disapprove of how the US has dealt with Iraq over the past 12 months.Respondents were polled in November and December - before the announcement by the US President, George Bush, of his new surge strategy in Iraq, and his plans to send an extra 21,500 troops into Baghdad to quell the sectarian violence gripping the capital. The polling also showed

global public opinion was against US handling of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, where David Hicks has been held without trial for more than five years, with 67 per cent of respondents opposed.The countries whose citizens were most strident in their opposition over Guantanamo Bay were Germany, Egypt, Turkey, Portugal, Italy, France and Lebanon, with 80 per cent or more opposed. Of the Australians polled, 77 per cent disapproved of the US Guantanamo Bay policies, while 76 per cent of Britons and 72 per cent of Indonesians also expressed disapproval. The poll was conducted by the international polling firm GlobeScan. In
only four of the 25 countries surveyed did a majority of respondents believe America's influence in the world was "mainly positive". They were Kenya, Nigeria, the Philippines and the US.The countries most disparaging of the role of the US in global affairs were Germany (74 per cent said it had a "mainly negative" impact) and Indonesia (71 per cent). In Australia, 60 per cent of respondents viewed America's influence as mainly negative.Opinion on the global influence of the US plunged most dramatically among citizens of its close ally Poland - one of the original coalition of the willing in Iraq - where positive responses fell from 62 per cent a year ago to 38 per cent. Similarly, in the Philippines positive opinion about the US impact on world affairs fell by 13 points to 72 per cent, in India by 14 points to 30 per cent, and in Indonesia by 19 points to 21 per cent.Respondents were polled on eight topics related to US foreign policy. In addition to Iraq, Guantanamo Bay and its global influence, people were asked about America's role in the Middle East. They were also asked how they thought the US had handled Iran's nuclear program, the war between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, North Korea's nuclear weapons program and global warming.France, Indonesia, Egypt, Mexico, Argentina and Brazil were the most critical of the US presence in the Middle East. In each, 80 per cent or more of the people polled said they believed the US provoked more conflict in the region than it prevented.

Guantanamo decreases U.S. soft power- sends bad signal to other countries
Nye 7 Joseph s. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School
of Government atHarvard University. He currently holds the position of University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University[1] , Jr. CSIS COMMISSION ON SMARTPOWERhttp://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/071106 csissmartpowerreport.pdf SJH Second, American

leaders ought to eliminate the symbols that have come to represent the image of an intolerant, abusive, unjust America. The unfairness of such a characterization does not minimize its persuasive power abroad. Closing the Guantanamo Bay detention center is an obvious starting point and should lead to a broader rejection of torture and prisoner abuse. Guantanamos very existence undermines Americas ability to carry forth a message of principled optimism and hope. Although closing Guantanamo will be no simple matter, legal and practical constraints are surmountable if it should become a priority of American leadership, and planning for its closure should begin well before the next president takes office. Third, we should use our diplomatic power for positive ends. Equally important to closing Guantanamo is expending political capital to end the corrosive effect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The United States must resume its traditional role as an effective
broker for peace in the Middle East, recognizing that all parties involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have a responsibility to bring about a peaceful solution. Although we cannot want peace more than the parties themselves, we cannot be indifferent to the widespread suffering that this conflict perpetuates, nor the passionate feelings that it arouses on all sides. Many have rightly made this recommendation before, and many will do so in the future until a just peace can be realized. In the Middle East and elsewhere,

effective American mediation confers global legitimacy and is a vital source of smart power.

Methods used in Guantanamo destroy U.S. credibility and undermine U.S soft power
Nye and Yale 04 (Joseph s. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F.
Kennedy School of Government atHarvard University. He currently holds the position of University Distinguished Service Professor at Harvard University[1] Can America Regain Its Soft Power After Abu Ghraib? http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/can-america-regain-its-soft-power-after-abu-ghraib) SJH

One of the heaviest costs of the Iraq War has been the loss of Americas reputation worldwide, writes Harvard professor Joseph S. Nye, Jr. The image of America as an arrogant, global bully is increasingly commonplace around the world. The abuses at Abu Ghraib prison have exacerbated this negative perception of the US, and contributed to the decline of Americas 'soft power'. For decades after WWII, Nye argues, America's soft power proved instrumental in influencing

human rights policies and attracting people around the world to democracy. Yet the US now spends a minimal amount of its budget on soft power programs, allotting a mere $150 million a year to public diplomacy in the Islamic world. There is
something wrong with our priorities, Nye writes, when the worlds leading country in the information age is doing such a poor job of getting its message out. Nevertheless, Nye continues, the USs

reputation will ultimately survive the negative press of horrors such as Abu Ghraib, as its democratic system demands that the individuals who committed and permitted these wrongs be brought to justice. Even when mistaken policies reduce our attractiveness, our ability to openly criticize and correct our mistakes
makes us attractive to others at a deeper level, Nye concludes. YaleGlobal

Guantanamo undermines international image and ruins soft power

Van Veeran 12 (Elspeth, Economic and Social Research Council Postdoctoral Research Fellow in
International Relations at the University of Sussex, Guantanamo Ten Years Later- Necessity or Troublesome Legacy?, January 10, 2012, http://www.sussex.ac.uk/ir/newsandevents?id=11379) In addition to having a pzrofound and lasting legacy for the men detained there (many released detainees have been traumatized and stigmatized by their time at the site), it has facilitated a militarization of counter-terrorism, it has altered international perceptions of the US, and it has resulted in the production of a cultural and political icon. Where countering and responding to terrorism was once the domain of the FBI and CIA, Guantnamo has for some proved that the US military can be used to

detain and prosecute terrorists a first for the US military, and a function that goes against centuries of US law. Paradoxically, this transformation means that
President Obama may be less likely to detain terrorists and more likely to resort to targeted killing, as occurred for example with the recent assassination of US citizen Anwar al- Awlak using unmanned aerial vehicles operated by the CIA. Guantnamos existence has had a profound impact on perceptions of the US and its values, undermining American soft power . Finally.

the orange-clad, hooded Guantnamo detainee is a globally recognised figure used to symbolise abuse and torture. This image has become visual shorthand for any manner of practices and locations where abuse is alleged, and will be with us for a while.

Closure Key
Closing Guantanamo increases U.S. soft power
Barker 10 (Dr. Peter Barker attended Oxford University in the United Kingdom, where he received a
Bachelor of Arts degree in chemistry and then a Doctor of Philosophy degree in physical chemistry. He conducted his post doctoral research at California Institute of Technology Soft Power, Hard Power, and Our Image Abroad http://www.lagrange.edu/resources/pdf/citations/2010/22quirkpoliticalscience.pdf) SJH

Global perceptions the world held of the U.S. changed drastically since President Obama took office in 2009. Both President Obama and Vice-President Biden agree
that a strong rejection of the unilateralism and reliance on hard power of President George W. Bush is necessary to improve our foreign relations (Lobe). Some examples of Obama fostering soft

power that were given include: closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, outlawing detainee torture, reinforcing the commitment of the U.S. to the power of the Geneva Convention, and changing the rhetoric of the War on Terrorism. Obama wants to make sure Muslims understand that the U.S. is not at war with Islam, the nation is at war with Al-Qaeda, Obama says, but not with terrorism, which, as he understands it is a tactic, not an enemy

Impact Democracy
US soft power is key to promoting democracy
Nye 2 (Joseph S. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy School
of Government at Harvard University. Paradox of American Power: Why the World's Only Superpower Can't Go It Alone Oxford University Press, 2002, http://site.ebrary.com/lib/michstate/Doc?id=10212058&ppg=172) The promotion of democracy is also a national interest and a source of soft power, though here the role of force is usually less central and the process is of a longer-term nature. The United States has

both an ideological and a pragmatic interest in the promotion of democracy.

While the argument that democracies never go to war with each other is too simple, it is hard to find cases of liberal democracies doing so. 25 Illiberal populist democracies such as Peru, Ecuador, Venezuela, or Iran, or countries going through the early stages of democratization, may become dangerous, but liberal democracies are less likely to produce refugees or engage in terrorism. 26 President Clintons 1995 statement that ultimately the best strategy to ensure our security and to build a durable peace is to support the advance of democracy elsewhere has a core of truth if approached with the caveats just described. 27 The key is to follow tactics that are likely to succeed over the long term without imposing inordinate costs on other foreign policy objectives in the near term. At the beginning of the twentieth century, the United States was among a handful of democracies. Since then, albeit with setbacks, the number has grown impressively. A third wave of democratization began in southern Europe in the 1970s, spread to Latin America and parts of Asia in the 1980s, and hit Eastern Europe in the 28 Prior to the 1980s, the United States did not pursue aid to democracy on a wide basis, but since the Reagan and Clinton administrations, such aid has become a deliberate instrument of policy. By the mid-1990s, a host of U.S. agencies (State Department, Defense Department, AID, Justice Department, National Endowment for Democracy) were spending over $700 million on such work. 29 Our economic and soft

power helps promote democratic values, and at the same time, our belief in human rights and democracy helps to increase our soft power.

Democracy solves war

Nye 11 (Joseph S. Nye is an American political scientist and former Dean of the John F. Kennedy
School of Government at Harvard University. The Future of Power New York: Perseus Books Group, 2011. 28-29. Print.) Whether rooted in human nature as in the classic realism of Thucydides and Machiavelli or in the larger systemic forces stressed by modern structural realism, military resources that provide the ability to prevail in war are conventionally portrayed as the most important form of power in global affairs. Indeed, in the nineteenth century the definition of a great power was the ability to prevail in war, and certainly war persists today. But as we saw in the last chapter, the world has become more complex since the nineteenth century, and the realist model does not fit all parts equally. British diplomat Robert Cooper argues that there are at least three different domainspostindustrial, industrializing, and preindustrialof interstate relations, with war playing a different role in each. For the

postindustrial world of advanced democracies, war is no longer a major instrument in their relations with each other. In this world, theorists correctly assert that it is almost impossible to find instances of advanced liberal democracies fighting each other. Instead, they are locked in a politics of complex interdependence in which other tools are used in power struggles. This does not
mean that advanced democracies do not go to war with other states or that fragile new democracies cannot go to war with each other. And for newly industrializing states such as China and India, war remains a potential instrument, as realists would predict. Similarly, among preindustrial societies, including much of Africa and the Middle East, the realist model remains a good fit. So the twenty-firstcentury answer to the question "Is military power the most important form of power in world politics?" depends upon the context. In much of the world, the answer is yes, but not in all domains or on all issues.

Impact Economy
Soft power key to the global economy
Nye 3 (Joseph, Professor Kennedy School of Government Harvard University, U.S. Power and
Strategy After Iraq, Foreign Affairs, July/August, Lexis) The problem for U.S. power in the twenty-first century is that more and more continues to fall outside the control of even the most powerful state. Although the United States does well on the traditional measures of hard power, these measures fail to capture the ongoing transformation of world politics brought about by globalization and the democratization of technology. The paradox of American power is that world politics is changing in a way that makes it impossible for the strongest world power since Rome to achieve some of its most crucial international goals alone. The U nited S tates lacks both the international and the domestic capacity to resolve conflicts that are internal to other societies and to monitor and control transnational developments that threaten Americans at home. On many of today's key issues, such as international financial stability, drug trafficking, the spread of diseases, and especially the new terrorism, military power alone simply cannot produce success, and its use can sometimes be counterproductive. Instead, as the most powerful country, the U nited S tates must mobilize international coalitions to

address these shared threats and challenges. By devaluing soft power and institutions, the new unilateralist coalition of Jacksonians and neo-Wilsonians is depriving Washington of some of its most important instruments for the implementation of the new national security strategy. If they manage to continue with this tack, the United States could
fail what Henry Kissinger called the historical test for this generation of American leaders: to use current preponderant U.S. power to achieve an international consensus behind widely accepted norms that will protect American values in a more uncertain future. Fortunately, this outcome is not preordained.

Impact Leadership
Soft power is key to overall U.S. leadership
Sen 5 (Sankar, Former Director Indian National Police Academy, The Statesman, 4-5, Lexis)
Indeed anti-American sentiment is sweeping the world after the Iraq war. It has, of course, been aggravated by the aggressive style of the present American President. Under George Bush, antiAmericanism is widely thought to have reached new heights. In the coming years the USA will lose more of its ability to lead others if it decides to act unilaterally. If other states step aside and question the USA's policies and objectives and seek to de-legitimise them, the problems of the USA will increase manifold. American success will lie in melding power and cooperation and generating a belief in other countries that their interests will be served by working with instead of opposing the United States. It is aptly said that use of power without cooperation becomes dictatorial and breeds resistance and resentment. But cooperation without power produces posturing and no concrete progress. There is also another disquieting development. It seems American soft power is waning and it is losing its allure as a model society. Much of the rest of the world is no longer looking up to the USA as a beacon. Rising religiosity, rank hostility to the UN, Bush's doctrine of preventive war, Guantanamo Bay etc are creating disquiet in the minds of many and turning them off America. This diminution of America's soft power will also create disenchantment and may

gradually affect American pre-eminence.

Decline of soft power will result in numerous escalating conflicts globally

Nye 96 (Joseph, Professor Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, Washington
Quarterly, Winter, Lexis) As a result of such disjunctions between borders and peoples, there have been some 30 communal conflicts since the end of the Cold War, many of them still ongoing. Communal conflicts, particularly those involving wars of secession, are very difficult to manage through the UN and other institutions built to address interstate conflicts. The UN, regional organizations, alliances, and individual states cannot provide a universal answer to the dilemma of self-determination versus the inviolability of established borders, particularly when so many states face potential communal conflicts of their own. In a world of identity crises on many levels of analysis, it is not clear which selves deserve sovereignty: nationalities, ethnic groups, linguistic groups, or religious groups. Similarly, uses of force for deterrence, compellence, and reassurance are much harder to carry out when both those using force and those on the receiving end are disparate coalitions of international organizations, states, and subnational groups. Moreover, although few communal conflicts by themselves threaten security beyond their regions, some impose risks of "horizontal" escalation, or the spread to other states within their respective regions. This can happen through the involvement of affiliated ethnic groups that spread across borders, the sudden flood of refugees into neighboring states, or the use of neighboring territories to ship weapons to combatants. The use of ethnic propaganda also raises the risk of "vertical" escalation to more intense violence, more sophisticated and destructive weapons, and harsher attacks on civilian populations as well as military personnel. There is also the danger that communal conflicts could become more numerous if the UN

and regional security organizations lose the credibility, willingness, and capabilities necessary to deal with such conflicts. Preventing and Addressing Conflicts: The Pivotal U.S. Role Leadership by the U nited S tates, as the world's leading economy, its most powerful military force,, and a leading democracy, is a key factor in limiting the frequency and destructiveness of great power, regional, and communal conflicts. The paradox of the post-cold war role of the United States is that it is the most powerful state in terms of both "hard" power resources (its economy and military forces) and "soft" ones (the appeal of its political system and culture), yet it is not so powerful that it can achieve all its international goals by acting alone. The United States lacks both the international and domestic prerequisites to resolve every conflict, and in each case its role must be proportionate to its interests at stake and the costs of pursuing them. Yet the United States can continue to enable and mobilize international coalitions to pursue shared security interests, whether or not the United States itself supplies large military forces. The U.S. role will thus not be that of a lone global policeman; rather, the U nited S tates can frequently serve as the sheriff of the

posse, leading shifting coalitions of friends and allies to address shared security concerns within the legitimizing framework of international organizations. This requires sustained
attention to the infrastructure and institutional mechanisms that make U.S. leadership effective and joint action possible: forward stationing and preventive deployments of U.S. and allied forces, prepositioning of U.S. and allied equipment, advance planning and joint training to ensure interoperability with allied forces, and steady improvement in the conflict resolution abilities of an interlocking set of bilateral alliances, regional security organizations and alliances, and global institutions.

Modern flow of information makes soft power key

Joseph Nye (Distinguished Service Professor, Dean of the School of Government at Harvard University), 2008, DigitalNPQ, When Hard Power Undermines Soft Power, http://www.digitalnpq.org/archive/2004_summer/nye.html Politics in an information age may ultimately be about whose story wins (Arquila and Ronfeldt 1999). Governments compete with each other and with other organizations to enhance their own credibility and weaken that of their opponents. Witness the struggle between Serbia and NATO to frame the interpretation of events in Kosovo in 1999 and the events in Serbia a year later. Prior to the demonstrations that led to the overthrow of Slobodan Milosevic in October 2000, 45 percent of Serb adults were tuned to Radio Free Europe and VOA. In contrast, only

31 percent listened to the state-controlled radio station, Radio Belgrade (Kaufman 2003). Moreover, the domestic alternative radio station, B92, provided access to Western news, and when the government tried to shut it down, it
continued to provide such news on the Internet. Reputation has always mattered in world politics, but the role of credibility becomes an even more important power resource because of the paradox of plenty.

Information that appears to be propaganda may not only be scorned, but it may also turn out to be counterproductive if it undermines a countrys reputation for credibility.

Hegemony requires soft power

Florig 10 (Dennis, Professor, Division of International Studies at Hanuk Korean University of Foreign
Studies Hegemonic Overreach vs. Imperial Overstretch April 30, 2010 http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=7918455)

In international relations, the theory of hegemony is crucial because it captures both the tendency of the worlds leading power to forcefully assert its dominance yet at the same time to create alliances, ideas, and institutions that attract the relatively free participation of other states and peoples in a more or less open international system. Hegemony thus embodies both the coercion of informal empire and the consent of democratic participation. It combines both the hard power of military and economic empire with the soft power of democratic ideas and global institutions. Because the current international system built around U.S. hegemony thus
contains both elements of coercion and consent, over time it could evolve in either the direction of an expanded informal empire or a more democratic, peaceful world order.

Impact Multilateralism
Soft power is key to multilateralism
Maxime Gomichon (Lecturer at the Sciences Po Bordeaux), 3-08-13, E-IR.info, Joseph Nye on Soft Power, http://www.e-ir.info/2013/03/08/joseph-nye-on-soft-power/

soft power, a positive-sum interaction can be implemented. Soft power need not be a zero-sum game in which one countrys gain is necessarily another countrys loss (Nye, 2011, p.90). Soft power can therefore benefit each side. It contradicts the Realist assumption that states only seek security. For Nye and other Liberal thinkers, states sometimes seek prosperity. Thus, Nye succeeds in putting together the assertion of the pre-eminence of the United States with the Liberal theory of a multilateral international system. He uses a three-dimensional chess game (Nye, 2004a, p.136-137): on the top chessboard, military power is unipolar, with the hegemony of the United States. On the economic board, power is multipolar: even though the U.S. takes first place, it is not hegemonic. And on
Even with the bottom chessboard, transnational relations are a dispersed power where no one leads. Therefore, the author can conclude that the U.S. must be mainly concerned with the bottom chessboard and it must use soft power to deal with this problem. Finally, for both the concept of soft power and the case of the U.S., Nye uses Liberalism, and particularly Neoliberal theory, to justify his arguments.

Impact Terrorism
Soft Power key to fighting terrorism
Nye 06 (Joseph, former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence
Council, University Professor at Harvard University Think Again: Soft Power Yale Global onlinehttp://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/think-again-soft-power) False. There is a small likelihood that the West will ever attract such people as Mohammed Atta or Osama bin Laden. We need hard power to deal with people like them. But the current terrorist

threat is not Samuel Huntingtons clash of civilizations. It is a civil war within Islam between a majority of moderates and a small minority who want to coerce others into an extremist and oversimplified version of their religion. The United States cannot win unless the moderates win. We cannot win unless the number of people the extremists are recruiting is lower than the number we are killing and deterring. Rumsfeld himself asked in a 2003 memo: Are we capturing, killing, or deterring and
dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrasas and the radical clerics are recruiting, training, and deploying against us? That equation will be very hard to balance without a

strategy to win hearts and minds. Soft power is more relevant than ever.

Soft Power combats Terrorism

Nye 4 (Joseph, former US assistant secretary of defense and chairman of the US National Intelligence
Council, University Professor at Harvard University Soft Power and the Struggle Against Terrorism April 21, 2004 http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/soft-power-and-the-struggle-againstterrorism#ZObikPc9FjwIvuU5.99) Soft Power and the Struggle Against Terrorism Last year, at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, George Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, asked Secretary of State Colin Powell why the United States seemed to focus only on its hard power rather than its soft power. Secretary Powell replied that the US had used hard power to win World War II, but he continued: "What followed immediately after hard power? Did the US ask for dominion over a single nation in Europe? No. Soft power came in the Marshall Plan.We did the same thing in Japan." After the war in Iraq ended, I spoke about soft power (a concept I developed) to a conference cosponsored by the US Army in Washington. One speaker was Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. According to a press account, "the top military brass listened sympathetically," but when someone asked Rumsfeld for his opinion on soft power, he replied, "I don't know what it means." One of Rumsfeld's "rules" is that "weakness is provocative." He is correct, up to a point. As Osama bin Laden observed, people like a strong horse. But power, defined as the ability to influence others, comes in many guises, and soft power is not weakness. On the contrary, it is the failure to use soft power effectively that weakens America in the struggle against terrorism. Soft power is the ability to get what one wants by attracting others rather than threatening or paying them. It is based on culture, political ideals, and policies. When you persuade others to want what you want, you do not have to spend as much on sticks and carrots to move them in your direction. Hard power, which relies on coercion, grows out of military and economic might. It remains crucial in a world populated by threatening states and terrorist organizations. But soft power will become increasingly important in preventing

terrorists from recruiting new supporters, and for obtaining the international cooperation necessary for countering terrorism. The US is more powerful

than any country since the Roman Empire, but like Rome, America is neither invincible nor invulnerable. Rome did not succumb to the rise of another empire, but to the onslaught of waves of barbarians. Modern high-tech terrorists are the new barbarians. The US cannot alone hunt down every suspected Al Qaeda leader. Nor can it launch a war whenever it wishes without alienating other
countries. The four-week war in Iraq was a dazzling display of America's hard military power that removed a vicious tyrant. But it did not remove America's vulnerability to terrorism. It was also costly in terms of our soft power to attract others. In the aftermath of the war, polls showed a dramatic decline in the popularity of the US even in countries like Britain, Spain, and Italy, whose governments supported the war. America's standing plummeted in Islamic countries, whose support is

needed to help track the flow of terrorists, tainted money, and dangerous weapons. The war on terrorism is not a clash of civilizations - Islam versus the West - but a civil war within Islamic civilization between extremists who use violence to enforce their vision and a moderate majority who want things like jobs, education, health care, and dignity as they pursue their faith. America will not win unless the moderates win. American soft power will never attract Osama bin Laden and the extremists. Only hard power can deal with them. But soft power will play a crucial role in attracting moderates and denying the extremists new recruits. During the Cold War, the West's strategy of containment combined the hard power of military deterrence with the soft power of attracting people behind the Iron Curtain. Behind the wall of military containment, the West ate away Soviet selfconfidence with broadcasts, student and cultural exchanges, and the success of capitalist economics. As a former KGB official later testified, "Exchanges were a Trojan horse for the Soviet Union. They played a tremendous role in the erosion of the Soviet system." In retirement, President Dwight Eisenhower said that he should have taken money out of the defense budget to strengthen the US Information Agency. With the Cold War's end, Americans became more interested in budget savings than in investing in soft power. In 2003, a bipartisan advisory group reported that the US was spending only $150 million on public diplomacy in Muslim countries, an amount it called grossly inadequate. Indeed, the combined cost for the State Department's public diplomacy programs and all of America's international broadcasting is just over $1 billion, about the same amount spent by Britain or France, countries that are one-fifth America's size and whose military budgets are only 25% as large. No one would suggest that America spend as much to launch ideas as to launch bombs, but it does seem odd that the US spends 400 times as much on hard power as on soft power. If the US spent just 1% of the military budget on soft power, it would quadruple its current spending on this key component of the war on terrorism. If America is to win that war, its leaders are going to have to do

better at combining soft and hard power into "smart power."

Soft Power Necessary to Fight Terrorism- Even the SECRETARY OF DEFENSE admits
NBC 7 (Defense Chief: Fight Terrorism with Soft Power, November 26, 2 007,
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21980961/ns/us_news-security/t/defense-chief-fight-terrorism-softpower/#.Ue7JU42cfK0)

WASHINGTON Defeating

terrorism will require the use of more soft power, with civilians contributing more in communication, economic assistance, political development and other non-military areas, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Monday. Gates called for the creation of new government organizations, including a
permanent group of civilian experts with a wide range of expertise who could be sent abroad on short notice as a supplement to U.S. military efforts. And he urged more involvement by university and other private experts. We must focus our energies beyond the guns and steel of the military, beyond just our brave soldiers, sailors, Marines and airmen, he said in a speech at Kansas State University in Manhattan, Kan. We must also focus our energies on the other elements of national power that will be so crucial in the coming years. He said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as U.S. military involvement in the 1990s in the Balkans and in Somalia, have shown that longterm success requires more than U.S. military power. Based on my experience serving seven presidents, as a former director of CIA and now as secretary of defense, I am here to make the case for strengthening our capacity to use soft power and for better integrating it with hard power, Gates said. Many have argued that the Bush administration missed opportunities early in the Iraq and Afghanistan campaigns to head off insurgent resistance by failing to focus on economic development, promotion of internal reconciliation, training of police forces and communication of U.S. goals. The lesson, Gates said, is that nontraditional conflict against insurgents, guerrillas and terrorists will be the mainstay of battlefields for years to come, requiring more than military power. Success will be

less a matter of imposing ones will and more a function o)f shaping behavior
of friends, adversaries and, most importantly, the people in between, Gates told his audience of students, faculty and local residents. He spoke as part of Kansas States Landon lecture series, named for former Kansas governor Alfred Landon. Last November the lecture was delivered by the man Gates replaced at the Pentagon, Donald Rumsfeld, who made a similar argument in favor of strengthening the role of the State Department and other federal agencies and linking their efforts more closely with those of the Pentagon. Iran on the minds of protesters Outside the lecture hall a small group of anti-war protesters wore T-shirts reading Dont Iraq Iran. Margaret Pendleton, a sophomore public relations major, urged diplomacy, making her point with a sign showing the faces of Iranian children. I support the troops, but in the same note I dont want to see any more war, she said. After his speech, Gates fielded questions from the audience, several on the war in Iraq and on the prospects for conflict with Iran. When a woman who described herself as a retired social worker asked him when U.S. troops would be withdrawn from Iraq, Gates noted that a limited pullout has begun under a plan that is to bring home five Army brigades between now and next July. And he expressed hope that conditions in Iraq would improve enough by then to permit further U.S. withdrawals. Another questioner cited reports of a rising suicide rate among returned Iraq veterans and asked Gates whether he would consider that problem to be a reason to pull out all U.S. forces by the end of 2008. Such suicides are "a real concern to us, Gates replied. At the same time, this is going to be a problem in any war, along with divorces and other personal upheaval linked to the stress of combat, he said. The Iran questions focused on the lack of a high-level dialogue aimed at averting war, and Gates reiterated that while no option should be ruled out, he would consider military action a last resort. In his speech, Gates said there is an urgent need to

figure out how to better organize the government to meet the security challenges of the 21st century. Among shortcomings in the non-military area, Gates singled out
U.S. strategic communications. He said the U.S. government is miserable at communicating its goals and policies to foreign audiences. It is just plain embarrassing that al-Qaida is better at communicating its message on the Internet than America, he said. Speed, agility and cultural relevance are not terms that come readily to mind when discussing U.S. strategic

communications. He decried the gutting in the 1990s of the U.S. governments ability to communicate effectively. He also called for bigger budgets for the State Department, whose foreign affairs spending, he said, is less than one-tenth what the Pentagon spends in a year, not counting the costs of fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. I am well aware that having a sitting defense secretary travel halfway across the country to make a pitch to increase the budget of other agencies might fit into the category of man bites dog or, for some back in the Pentagon, blasphemy, Gates said. Still, he said, senior military officers often stress to him the importance of civilian roles in Iraq and Afghanistan.

US soft power and control of narrative key to solving for terrorismHambali proves
Harman 12 (Jane, a nine-term Congresswoman and former ranking Democrat on the House
Intelligence Committee, Rresident and chief executive of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Fighting Terrorism Softly July 10, 2012 http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/10/fightingterrorism-softly-opinion/) "Too often since 9/11," then-Sen. Barack Obama said during the last presidential campaign, "the extremists have defined us, not the other way around." In a major counterterrorism policy speech at the Wilson Center in Washington, Obama vowed that would change if he became president. "We will author our own story," he said. Unfortunately, one of the greatest security threats to this country continues to be the hijacking not only of our airplanes, but also of our national narrative. Many Americans think that the United States' primary role in the world is the projection of military might. And while the "hard power" represented by drone strikes and aircraft carriers is essential to our security, living and portraying our values is as - if not more - important in the long run. But what about the young people who perhaps see the aftermath of a drone strike and are still trying to decide whether or not to strap on that suicide vest? Whose story do we want them to hear? Ours or that of the extremists? While the drone program is an effective tool to combat al Qaeda, "whack-a-mole" alone won't keep us safe. We need to win the argument. Unfortunately, showcasing our values to the world has become increasingly difficult given Congress's lack of cohesiveness and eroding support for foreign aid. Blame-game politics has shifted the emphasis from creative ideas to crippling ideology, making it nearly impossible to raise and debate some of the toughest issues facing this country today. As a result, we are perilously close to losing

control of our own narrative, allowing extremists to slip in and define what we believe in and what we stand for in the post-9/11 world. Foggy laws and a lack of
information surrounding targeted killings, preventive detention, and interrogation techniques have made it far too easy for terrorists to shape and spread their own story. And they will continue to use any stains on our record (think: Abu Ghraib) as ammunition. So how can we "author our own story? One of the most powerful ways to project American values and define our interests is to display generosity and compassion in the wake of natural disasters. While the primary role of the military should not be to oversee recovery efforts after an earthquake, our extraordinary competence at staging disaster relief allows the US to puts its best face forward for those who might not otherwise see it. At a panel on security resilience at the World Economic Forum in Bangkok last month, I outlined how the United States had the chance to showcase its better angels after several recent disasters, including the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami, the Thai floods, the 2005 earthquake in Pakistan, and the Fukushima, Japan, nuclear disaster. Following these catastrophes, the U.S. provided more than just "hard"

assistance designed to save lives. In Thailand, Americans and Thais packed and delivered food, donated blood, and gathered supplies together. In Japan, U.S. forces cleared rubble from schools. And in both places, Americans opened their homes to displaced colleagues and children. These efforts had a direct impact on U.S. relations with the affected countries. Japanese Cabinet office polls registered record levels of public goodwill towards the U.S. after the rescue efforts, and 85% of Japanese viewed the United States positively in Pew's annual Global Attitude Project survey in 2011 - up from 66% the year before. Ironically, our best foreign policy tool may be our generosity. Building trust both with citizens and governments after natural disasters can help increase future collaboration on

other key issues-with counterterrorism topping the list. The capture of Indonesian-born terrorist Hambali, who was seized in Bangkok by Thai authorities, in many ways exemplifies the importance of establishing and maintaining these liaison relationships. The war against al Qaeda and its affiliates is new in
so many ways: Our enemies don't wear uniforms, the battleground isn't clearly defined, and the conflict is potentially never-ending. Still, some old war lessons might apply. In a new book called Elusive Victories: The American Presidency at War, political science professor Andrew J. Polsky draws on numerous historical examples to show that presidents at war are not as powerful as they think. Once conflict begins, they find themselves constrained by their earlier decisions. "I claim not to have controlled events," Abraham Lincoln wrote in a letter during the Civil War, "but confess plainly that events have controlled me." Just as presidents lose control over events during wartime, they can also have difficulty holding on to a coherent narrative. One of the biggest surprises of Barack Obama's presidency is that the cerebral law professor has emerged as an extraordinarily strong commander-in-chief, successfully targeting many of the world's most dangerous terrorists. Meanwhile, for the eloquent leader who promised to "author our own story," winning the war of words has become an even greater challenge. While the president can't control every contingency on the ground, he (and Congress) has a responsibility to craft a winning narrative. When we fail to step up and define ourselves, the extremists will be happy to do it for us.

CMR Advantage

CMR Low
Uniqueness CMR Low multiple warrants
Munson, 12 (Peter J., Marine officer, author, and Middle East specialist, A Caution on Civil-Military
Relations, Small Wars Journal, November 12, 2012 - 10:40am, http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/acaution-on-civil-military-relations, accessed 7/23/13) PE This brief post represents only a few quickly dashed thoughts in the hope of getting something on paper that might morph into a longer and more useful essay on civil-military relations. I believe that civilmilitary relations in the United States are deeply troubled. The issues are lurking mostly in the background right now. On the surface, our leadershipcivilian and militaryhas been able to negotiate some relatively complex rapids without any of the major drama that has cropped up in the past. The falling out between Truman and MacArthur comes to mind. Nonetheless, there are serious background issues that will only get worse in 2014 and beyond. There are several reasons for concern. The all-volunteer force has fought two brutal wars for over a decade while a (guilty or thankful) American population has stood by with very little involvement. There have been no war bonds, no victory gardens, no bandage wrapping drives, no air raid drillsnothing to make them feel a part of the conflict other than the human interest stories about killed and wounded veterans and the once-nightly footage of shattered HMMWVs and burning convoys. This has created an inequality in experience and sacrifice that the public has generally attempted to repay through extreme deference and ever-multiplying shows of thankfulness, the likes of which have never been seen in American society. Part of this is as a corrective to the disgraceful treatment of our Vietnam veterans, to be sure, but it has consequences nonetheless. In the face of such an inequality of experience and service and in such a deferential environment, public criticism of the military is all too easily dismissed as unpatriotic. Not only is this foil used to deflect criticism, but its threat deters many from bringing up much needed commentary and dissent. Likewise, unquestioning support of the military plays no small factor in making any discussion of rationalizing military budgets and targeting wasteful military spending difficult, if not impossible. Late addition: This dynamic plays out in media coverage of the military, as well, leading to an insufficient criticality, or at least a lack of perspective, in much coverage. At worst, the media becomes a propaganda arm or engages in a cult of hero worship that perpetuates the dynamics above. As this coverage creates narratives that impact critical national security decisions, it likewise skews civilmilitary relations. The media is a central part of any civil-military dynamic in a democracy, providing the information that informs public discourse and shapes the decision-making space. If the media is

incapable of being a relatively objective arbiter, this contributes to a flawed civil-military dynamic. The military, itself, has internalized much of this adulation. When ushered to the front of boarding lines at the airport, offered discounts at a myriad of
establishments, proffered all sorts of swag at any number of appreciation venues, and even venerated daily on cable news with the incredibly self-centered practice of surprise homecomings, it is difficult for members of the military not to fall victim to a culture of creeping narcissism. Faced with lengthy, rapid fire deployments that placed some military members away from the stabilizing influences of family and normality for years of their lives, the military itself had to play up a narrative of sacrifice and exceptionalism to help keep the trains running. This narrative was drummed into the military and reinforced by its members who saw themselves deploying again and again as society stayed home and placed them on a pedestal. This is not to say that the sacrifice was insignificant, but to acknowledge that

there were second order effects of the adulation. Even within the military, there was a significant inequality in hardships faced, from FOBbits with daily access to all the comforts of home to infantrymen living in squalor and under the constant threat of not only death, but horrific dismemberment. This additional dynamic, as an aside, has led to a significant insecurity on the part of some (but surely not most or all) of those servicemembers who operated in support roles. You can see it in those who make cryptic references to their special operations background or play up training that they never rightfully received. You see, even within the military there is a distinct hierarchy of who has truly been there and done that and those who feel they must insinuate that they did. I may be wrong, but I get the sense that the post-WWII culture just assumed that everyone had done their part and little need be said about it. In all, this adds up to a military that at least in part feels it has earned entitlement, that it deserves the deferential treatment it receives, and that America needs to sacrifice to provide for the militarywhether that be benefits or budget outlays. This is an incredibly dangerous cultural artifact, especially in light of the coming period of adjustment. As Americas involvement in Afghanistan winds down and as the nation is forced to adjust to new fiscal realities, the military will face a time of significant adjustment and likely austerity. A military with an entitled culture and an inability to countenance searing introspection will be unable to properly adjust to these new realities and will fail to make the necessary reforms, corrections, and resets that the strategic situation demands. More critically, the prospects for an unfavorable outcome in Afghanistan, coupled with significant budget cuts, will open the door for a knife in the back narrative that might argue that the civilian politicians and the American public lost the conflict by giving up on the great sacrifice and heroic efforts of the American military there and, furthermore, the government then slashed the military budget (and perhaps restructured some entitlements) betraying a military charged with facing a plethora of threats around the world. Such a narrative would be dangerouspoisonousfor civil-military relations. In this it is important to recognize that our political institutions are undergoing a crisis of their own. Trust in government is at its lowest ebb in recent history. Political polarization is at its highest mark since the Great Depression. Demographic and economic pressures will multiply in coming years not only on the US, but more significantly on its key allies in Europe. The world will see a significant transformation of its power structure in the coming decades, all of which will put great strain on the countrys civil-military relations. Thus, it is of critical importance that we discuss, address, and correct any flaws in this dynamic now before they reach crisis proportions in the years to come.

CMR low their evidence focuses on the wrong aspects of CMR

Owens 12 (Mackubin Thomas, American military historian and conservative political figure, Associate
Dean of Academics for Electives and Directed Research and Professor of Strategy and Force Planning for the Naval War College, Best Defense department of civil-military relations, Monday, August 6, 2012, Online, http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/08/06/mac_owens_on_the_forgotten_dimensions_of_american _civil_military_relations, accessed 7/27/13) PE It is fair to say that most Americans do not pay much attention to civil-military relations (CMR) and on the rare occasions when they do, they equate the term almost exclusively with civilian control of the military. There are a couple of reasons for this: First, U.S. CMRs appear to be fairly healthy, especially in terms of civilian control. The U.S. military as an institution seems to have internalized a commitment to civilian control. Second, most of those who have written about U.S. CMR, from Sam Huntington to Richard Kohn and Peter Feaver, have focused on civilian control. But this is problematic: It may cause citizens to miss other signs of unhealthy CMR. For soldiers, this focus, especially as articulated by Huntington in The Soldier

and the State, which provides an "ideal" formula for maintaining civilian control while also keeping the military strong, means that they will tend to focus on operational factors -- how to fight wars -- at the expense of strategy, the purpose for which a war is fought. In other words, they may fail

to connect operational art, at which the U.S. military excels, to political goals.
My own argument is that it is necessary to take a broader perspective on CMR. Civilian control is important but it is not the only dimension of CMR. For citizens and soldiers to ignore the other dimensions of CMR runs the risk of placing the Republic in peril.

Gitmo Internal
Link public support for closure
Reuters, 13 (John McCain: Guantanamo Bay Closure Has Increasing Public Support, 06/09/2013
1:24 pm EDT, Huffington Post, Online, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/09/john-mccainguantanamo_n_3412111.html, accessed 7/23/13) PE Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday there is increasing public support for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland. "There's renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready," McCain, who went to Guantanamo last week with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's "State of the Union" program. McCain, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, are working with the Obama administration on plans that could relocate detainees to a maximum-security prison in Illinois. "We're going to have to look at the whole issue, including giving them more periodic review of their cases," McCain, of Arizona, said. President Barack Obama has pushed to close Guantanamo, saying in a speech in May it "has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." The camp holds 166 prisoners picked up in the war on terrorism, most of whom have been held without charges for more than a decade. McCain and others who favor closing the prison have been unable to overcome opposition in Congress, where many Republicans say the administration has not offered satisfactory alternatives on what to do with the detainees. Meanwhile, detainees have complained of abuse and torture, which the administration denies, while rights activists and international observers have criticized the government's use of the prison. Obama, a Democrat who promised in his 2008 election campaign to close the prison, pledged last month to lift a ban imposed on transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, one of the core obstacles to clearing out the detention camp. Of the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer or release, 56 are from Yemen, where al Qaeda has a dangerous presence. An unknown number of the 80 other prisoners at the camp who are not cleared are Yemeni as well. More than 100 prisoners in the camp have joined a hunger strike to protest the failure to resolve their fate after more than a decade of detention, and 41 are being force-fed through tubes inserted into their noses and down into their stomachs because they have lost so much weight.

Link join chiefs and public support closure

Joyner, 8 (James, founder and editor-in-chief of the weblog Outside The Beltway and a frequent
contributor to TCS Daily, Joint Chiefs Chairman: Close Guantanamo, Outside the Beltway, MONDAY, JANUARY 14, 2008, http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/joint_chiefs_chairman_close_guantanamo/, accessed 7/27/13) PE The chief of the U.S. military said he favors closing the prison here as soon as possible because he believes negative publicity worldwide about treatment of terrorist suspects has been pretty damaging to the image of the United States. Id like to see it shut down, Adm. Mike Mullen said Sunday in an interview with three reporters who toured the detention center with him on his first visit since becoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff last October. His visit came two days after the sixth anniversary of the prisons opening in January 2002. He stressed that a closure decision was not his to make and that he

understands there are numerous complex legal questions the administration believes would have to be settled first, such as where to move prisoners. The admiral also noted that some of Guantanamo Bays prisoners are deemed high security threats. During a tour of Camp Six, which is a high-security facility holding about 100 prisoners, Mullen got a firsthand look at some of the cells; one prisoner glared at Mullen through his narrow cell window as U.S. officers explained to the Joint Chiefs chairman how they maintain almost-constant watch over each prisoner. Mullen, whose previous visit was in December 2005 as head of the U.S. Navy, noted that President Bush and Defense Secretary Robert Gates also have spoken publicly in favor of closing the prison. But Mullen said he is unaware of any active discussion in the administration about how to do it. Im not aware that there is any immediate consideration to closing Guantanamo Bay, Mullen said. Asked why he thinks Guantanamo Bay, commonly dubbed Gitmo, should be closed, and the prisoners perhaps moved to U.S. soil, Mullen said, More than anything else its been the image how Gitmo has become around the world, in terms of representing the United States. Critics have charged that detainees have been mistreated in some cases and that the legal conditions of their detentions are not consistent with the rule of law. I believe that

from the standpoint of how it reflects on us that its been pretty damaging,
Mullen said, speaking in a small boat that ferried him to and from the detention facilities across a glistening bay.

Impact Coups
US CMR is modeled globally collapse domestically would result in disruption globally and simultaneous military coups.
Perry, Former Secretary of Defense, 5/13/1996 (Bill, ADDRESS BY: SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
BILL PERRY AT KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT HARVARD UNIVERSITY CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS Federal News Service) Democracy is learned behavior. Many nations today have democracies that exist on paper, but in fact are extremely fragile. And elections are a necessary but an insufficient condition for a free society. It is

also necessary to embed democratic values in the key institutions of the nation. And I believe that our Defense Department has a key role to play in this effort. In virtually every new democracy -- in Russia, in the newly free nations of the former Soviet Union, in Central and Eastern Europe, in South America and the Asian tigers -- the military represents a major force. In many cases it is the most cohesive institution, and it often contains a large percentage of the educated elite, and it controls key resources. In short, it is an institution that can either support democracy or subvert it. And we must recognize that each society moving from totalitarianism to democracy will be tested at some point by a crisis. It
could be an economic crisis, it could be a backslide on human rights or freedoms, a border or ethnic dispute with a neighboring country. But when such a crisis occurs, we want the military

to play a positive role in resolving the crisis, not a negative role by fanning the flames of the crisis, or even using the crisis as a pretext for a military coup. In these new democracies we can choose to ignore this important institution, or we can try to exert a positive influence. We have chosen the latter. And, believe me, we do have the ability to influence. Indeed, every military in the world looks to the U.S. armed forces as the model to be emulated. That is a valuable bit of leverage, and we can put it to use creatively in our preventive defense strategy.

Those coups result in humanitarian crises and nuclear war.

Cimbala, Prof. of polisci @ Penn State, 1998 (Stephen, The Past and Future of Nuclear Deterrence,
p. 21)

the quality of political regimes and the extent to which they successfully hold their military establishments accountable will do much to determine whether a world without nuclear superpowersis more or less stable than the world we are now leaving behind. Unaccountable praetorian governments holding small arsenals could provide scare moments, visions of hell at the regional level with ethnic, religious, and national wars abetted by weapons of mass destruction.
In particular,

Strong civil military relations are key to prevent coups resulting in nuclear war and terrorism
Todd Sechser, researches South Asian nuclear issues for the Non-Proliferation Project at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, November 15, 1999, Defense News http://www.ceip.org/programs/npp/dn111599.htm

Pakistans recent coup highlights the unique dangers of nuclear proliferation in politically unstable states. Eighteen months after India and Pakistan declared their nuclear
capabilities in a series of test explosions, U.S. government sources now report that they have taken the step of weaponizing their nuclear devices by placing them atop ballistic missiles. Pakistans coup was bloodless, but its decision to build an arsenal raises the prospect that future revolts could

involve nuclear arms. In a country where civilian control of the military is weak, political chaos could result in a catastrophic nuclear accident. During the
Cold War, the United States and Soviet Union took a number of steps to ensure stringent control over their nuclear arsenals. The "two-man rule" was developed to prevent unauthorized launches, requiring simultaneous action by two military officers to launch a nuclear-armed missile. Electronic locks were installed, with only the president and a few select military officers holding the codes. Technical safeguards were developed to prevent warheads from detonating accidentally. Unfortunately, the U.S. has failed to apply this prudence to emerging nuclear powers. Fearing that nuclear safety assistance would undermine the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty's (NPT) credibility, Washington has shared its safety technology secrets with only its closest European allies. U.S. policy has achieved near-perfect success in constraining proliferation, but it may aggravate dangers in the few cases where nuclear weapons have spread. New proliferants, including India and Pakistan, have proved unwilling or unable to develop nuclear safety devices. In a book published by Indias quasi-governmental Institute for Defence Studies and Analysis, Nuclear India, author Kapil Kak argued that "there is no necessity to replicate the elaborate command and control structures of the West, which we can ill afford." This precarious situation requires new thinking. The NPT prohibits assistance in weapon production, but legal scholars point out that it does not expressly forbid aid to safeguard existing weapons. A nuclear war triggered by an inadvertent missile launch would arguably harm non-proliferation efforts more than a program of minimal safety assistance. The United States should evaluate whether its strong commitment to the NPT can be balanced with weapon safety programs. In particular, the U.S. should consider declassifying early versions of nuclear safety mechanisms for employment by India and Pakistan. The uniform military support witnessed in Pakistans coup rarely characterizes military upheavals. In a domestic

power struggle, nuclear weapons would be important symbols of domestic authority. Rival factions likely would clash over control of the arsenal, and the rush to seize warheads could result in a devastating nuclear accident. Fragile command and control also raises the prospect of theft by terrorists.
Safety mechanisms similar to those employed on U.S. nuclear weapons could help mitigate these risks.

The danger of military coups exists globally

Kohn, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 1997 (Richard "An Essay on Civilian Control of the
Military" http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html)

Finally, the

most important institution supporting civilian control must be the military itself. The fundamental assumption behind civilian supremacy is the abstinence by the military from intervention in government and political life. While worldwide the coup has diminished in the last decade, in many places the threat still lingers. In still others, the military has the power to make and unmake governments, or to impose or block policies wholly outside the realm of national security, and
certainly on issues of defense. Civilian control is, by its very nature, nonexistent if the armed forces can use force, or military influence, to turn a government out of power, to dictate the character of a government or a particular policy, or to act in any way outside those areas of responsibility duly delegated by higher authority. Even the hint of such extortion, if allowed to persist or to go

unpunished, intimidates civilian officials from exercising their authority, particularly in military affairs. Therefore civilian control requires a military establishment trained, committed, and dedicated to political neutrality, that shuns under all circumstances any interference with the constitutional functioning or legitimate process of government, that identifies itself as the embodiment of the people and the nation, and that defines into its professionalism unhesitating loyalty to the system of government and obedience to whomever exercises legal authority. Because of their expertise and role as
the nation's guardian, military leaders in democracies can possess great public credibility, and can use it to limit or undermine civilian control, particularly during and after successful wars. The difficulty is to define their proper role and to confine their activity within proper boundaries even when those boundaries are fuzzy and indistinct. The scholar of civil-military relations in Israel, Yehuda Ben Meir, believes that the military should advise civilians, represent the needs of the military inside the government, but not advocate military interests or perspectives publicly in such a way as to undermine or circumscribe civilian authority.

Impact Democracy
CMR is key to democracy
U.S. Department of State's Bureau of International Information Programs. July 2008 (Principal of Democracy: Civil-Military Relations http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/principles/civil.htm) Issues of war and peace are the most momentous any nation can face, and at times of crisis, many nations turn to their military for leadership. Not in democracies. In democracies, questions of peace

and war or other threats to national security are the most important issues a society faces, and thus must be decided by the people, acting through their elected representatives. A democratic military serves its nation rather than leads it. Military leaders advise the elected leaders and carry out their decisions. Only those who are elected by the people have the authority and the responsibility to decide the fate of a nation. This idea of civilian control and authority over the military is thus, fundamental to democracy. Civilians need to direct their nation's military and decide issues of national defense not
because they are necessarily wiser than military professionals, but precisely because they are the people's representatives and as such are charged with the responsibility for making these decisions and remaining accountable for them. The military in a democracy exists to protect the nation and the freedoms of its people. It does not represent or support any political viewpoint or ethnic and social group. Its loyalty is to the larger ideals of the nation, to the rule of law, and to the principle of democracy itself. Civilian

control assures that a country's values, institutions, and policies are the free choices of the people rather than the military. The purpose of a military is to defend society, not define it. Any democratic government values the expertise and advice of
military professionals in reaching policy decisions about defense and national security. Civilian officials rely upon the military for expert advice on these matters and to carry out the decisions of the government. But only the elected civilian leadership should make ultimate policy decisions -- which the military then implements in its sphere. Military figures may, of course, participate fully and equally in the political life of their country just like any other citizens - but only as individual voters. Military people must first retire from military service before becoming involved in politics; armed services must remain separate from politics. The military are the neutral servants of the state, and the guardians of society. Ultimately,

civilian control of the military ensures that defense and national security issues do not compromise the basic democratic values of majority rule, minority rights, and freedom of speech, religion, and due process. It is the responsibility of all political leaders to enforce civilian control and the responsibility of the military to obey the lawful orders of civilian authorities.

Democracy solves extinction.

Diamond -95 (Larry Diamond, Hoover Institution, Stanford University, December, PROMOTING
DEMOCRACY IN THE 1990S, 1995, p. http://www.carnegie.org//sub/pubs/deadly/diam_rpt.html //)

Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons continue to proliferate. The very source of life on Earth, the global ecosystem, appears increasingly endangered. Most of these new and unconventional threats to security are associated with or aggravated by the weakness or absence of democracy, with its provisions for legality, accountability, popular sovereignty and openness. The experience of this century offers important lessons. Countries that govern themselves in a truly democratic fashion do not go to war with one another. They do not aggress against
their neighbors to aggrandize themselves or glorify their leaders. Democratic governments do not ethnically "cleanse" their own populations, and they are much less likely to face ethnic insurgency. Democracies do not sponsor terrorism against one another. They do not build weapons of mass destruction to use on or to threaten one another. Democratic countries form more reliable, open, and enduring trading partnerships. In the long run they offer better and more stable climates for investment. They are more environmentally responsible because they must answer to their own citizens, who organize to protest the destruction of their environments. They are better bets to honor international treaties since they value legal obligations and because their openness makes it much more difficult to breach agreements in secret. Precisely because, within their own borders, they respect competition, civil liberties, property rights, and the rule of law, democracies are the only reliable foundation on which a new world order of international security and prosperity can be built.

CMR is key to democracy and war prevention

Bruneau, professor in the Department of National Security Affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School's
School of International Graduate Studies and serves as director of the Center for Civil-Military Relations, 2004 (Thomas C., "Teaching Civil-Military Relations", eJournal USA: Foreign Policy Agenda, November http://www.ccmr.org/public/library_file_proxy.cfm/lid/5337

The study and teaching of civil-military relations is extremely important because unless civilians know how to establish and manage these key institutions, real democratic civil-military relations cannot be achieved. Absent effective institutional controls, a country is simply not a democracy. Democracy is a value by itself, derivative of the benefits of liberty and freedom, and it is widely known that democracies create better conditions than other political systems for human progress and the minimization of conflict and war. By employing a "lessons-learned and best practices approach," civilians can learn
how to control the military, and officers can come to understand that, in the long run, such control benefits them and their nation.

CMR is necessary to balance out authoritarianism

Richard H. Kohn. 1997. The University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill. Triangle Institute for Security Studies. American Diplomacy. An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html#a

FOR DEMOCRACY, civilian control -- that is, control of the military by civilian officials elected by the people -- is fundamental. Civilian control allows a nation to base its values and purposes, its institutions and practices, on the popular will rather than on the choices of military leaders, whose outlook by definition focuses on the need for internal order and external security. The military is among the least democratic institutions in human experience; martial customs and procedures clash by nature with individual freedom and civil liberty, the highest values in democratic societies. The military is authoritarian, while democratic society is consensual or participatory. One is hierarchical, the other
essentially egalitarian. One insists on discipline and obedience, subordinating personal needs and desires to the group and to a mission or goal. The other is individualistic, attempting to achieve the greatest good for the largest number by encouraging the pursuit of individual needs and desires in the marketplace and in personal lives, each person relying upon their own talents and ingenuity. One emphasizes order, conformity, harmony, and homogeneity; the other tolerates, even celebrates, disagreement and diversity of perspective.

Democracy cannot exist without CMR

Richard H. Kohn. 1997. The University of North Carolina of Chapel Hill. Triangle Institute for Security Studies. American Diplomacy. An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html#a

The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it. While a country may have civilian control of the military without democracy, it cannot have democracy without civilian control. In the history and conept, civilian control is simple. Every decision of
government, in peace and in war -- all choices about national security -- are made or approved by officials outside the professional armed forces: in democracies, by civilian officials elected by the

people or appointed by those who are elected. In principle, civilian control is absolute and all- encompassing. In principle, no decision or responsibility falls to the military unless expressly or implicitly delegated to it by civilian leaders. All matters great and small, from the resolve to go to war to the potential punishment prescribed for a hapless sentry who falls asleep on duty, emanate from civilian authority or are decided by civilians. Even the decisions of command--the
selection of strategy, of what operations to mount and when, and what tactics to employ, the internal management of the military in peace and in war--derive from civilian authority, falling to uniformed people only for convenience or out of tradition, or for the greater efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces.

Other countries model our civilian control of the military that is critical to democracy promotion
Kohn, Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 1997 (Richard "An Essay on Civilian Control of the
Military" http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html) At one time or another in the 20th century alone, civilian

control of the military has been a concern of democracies like the United States and France, of communist tyrannies
such as the Soviet Union and China, of fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy, and since 1945, of many smaller states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. As recently as ten years ago,

military regimes ruled at least seventy of the world's countries. Civilian control has special significance today more than ever. Throughout the formerly
communist world, societies are struggling to build the institutions for democratic governance. NATO has made civilian control a prerequisite for joining the Alliance. In encouraging democratization, the

United States and other western powers use civilian control of the military as one measure of progress toward democratic process. The task will still remain to
establish civilian control over national security policy and decision-making. But in the new democracies the challenge is more formidable, for in attempting to gain supremacy over military affairs, civilians risk provoking the defiance of the military, and without sufficient public support, perhaps even military intervention. While based mostly on western, and particularly Anglo-American

experience, the analysis applies to any society that practices democratic government, or is making the transition to government based upon the sovereignty and will of the people. Why Civilian Control Matters FOR DEMOCRACY,
civilian control -- that is, control of the military by civilian officials elected by the people -- is fundamental. Civilian control allows a nation to base its values and purposes, its institutions and practices, on the popular will rather than on the choices of military leaders, whose outlook by definition focuses on the need for internal order and external security.

Impact Heg
Impact CMR leads to democratization in the military increases military effectiveness
Bruneau and Cristiana, 8 (Thomas C., Security Affairs Department, Naval Postgraduate School,
FLORINA, lecturer at the United States Naval Postgraduate School (NPS), and a PhD candidate researching civil -military relations, Towards a New Conceptualization of Democratization and CivilMilitary Relations, Online, http://iis-db.stanford.edu/evnts/5541/Bruneau_final_file.pdf, accessed 7/23/13) PE Although it may seem counter-intuitive, increased democratic control can improve effectiveness in military, intelligence, and police forces. Based on historical research, Deborah Avant concludes, Having more civilians control the army made it easier, not harder, for the army to maintain its focus.56 While too much direction and oversight obviously can hamper security services capabilities or reveal sources and methods in intelligence, implementing good control, i.e., instituting control and oversight in a way that provides top-level direction and general oversight guidance, as opposed to malfeasance or cronyism, leads to improved effectiveness. For example, one of the few acknowledged successes in US civil military relations, the 1986 Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act, both reinforced democratic civilian control and mandated jointness for the military services in the United States. Although some interoperability issues certainly remain, US forces have been more effective at fulfilling their various roles and missions since this level of democratic control was enacted. Operation Desert Storm, operations in the former Yugoslavia and Afghanistan, and the initial combat success in Iraq bear witness to these improvements. Romania provides a good example of how democratic control can improve effectiveness in an intelligence organization, which is positive for legitimacy of the government (and facilitated NATO membership and European Union accession). As Romania made its transition to democracy, its intelligence structure consisted of as many as nine agencies with little oversight, direction or clear roles and missions. As both the executive and legislative branches implemented control mechanisms, the intelligence community in Romania began to improve. For example, the executive branch created the National Supreme Defence Council (CSAT), which organizes and coordinates all intelligence activities.57 The CSAT monitors and validates national security and military strategies, as well as intelligence products from the agencies. Similarly, legislative control and oversight of intelligence agencies is exercised through specialized parliamentary committees. Together, the CSAT and parliament have reduced the Romanian intelligence community from nine organizations to six; improved recruitment, training and professionalism; and clarified the mission of each agency. As a result of these measures, the Romanian intelligence apparatus is both more effective and more efficient.

CMR is key to effectiveness of military and hegemony

Richard Kohn 11/4/1999 (Kohn is a professor of history and peace, was, and defense at the University of North Carolina , US commission on National Security, FDCH, p. 18, http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/security/has308020.000/has308020_0f.htm)

Among the assumptions underlying the report ''New World Coming'' is that the

security of a nation depends not only on its human and material resources but on the ability of the state to translate those into military power and apply that power in ways appropriate to defend the country's existence, territory, values, and interests. Therefore we believe it essential to consider some of the domestic factors that relate to national security. My focus is on the relationship of the military to society. Civil-military relations are critical to national defense. If the armed forces diverge in attitude or understanding beyond what is expected of the military profession in a democratic society, have less contact, grow less interested in or knowledgeable about each other, the consequences could be significant. Each could lose confidence in the other. Recruiting could be damaged. Military effectiveness could be harmed. The resources devoted to national defense could decline below what is adequate. Civil-military cooperation could deteriorate, with impact upon the ability of the United States to use military forces to maintain the peace or support American foreign policy.

Impact Nigeria
Nigeria models us stance on cmr
AFRICA NEWS, 3/27/02

United States Ambassador to Nigeria, Mr. Howard Jeter, yesterday in Abuja called on the defence establishment in the country to commence dialogue on the building of a healthy civil-military relationship. Speaking in Abuja at the on-going seminar on the "Role of the military in a democracy", Jeter said that the United States had found it extremely useful to have civilians work for the military services. He pointed out that in the effort to build a strong and healthy civil-military realtionship, "we have serving military officers working in various capacities in civil institutions like the legislature and the executive". According to him such interface of civil-military relationship enables the system to benefit from the expertise and operational understanding of both sides in policy formulation. "Through these exchanges, the civilian agencies are better informed, the military and the department of defence are better informed and decision making is easier," he said.

Cmr in nigeria is key to promote democracy

BBC, 8/5/02
"It must be borne in mind that the Western Regional election violence (Operation wetie) of 1965-66, played a key role in the military coup of January 1999," he noted. He said that the rule of law must be strictly adhered to, while the electorate on their part, must tolerate the political, ethnic, and religion differences of others, since democracy legitimizes diversity and protects and promotes alternative options, especially the views of the minority. While advising that the fundamental human rights of citizens should be respected, Ogomudia said that the interest of the military in the area of welfare, training, procurement and maintenance of equipment, release and payment of salaries, and provision of barracks accommodation, amongst other things, should be taken care of. There is also the need for the holding and

organization of regular dialogue between the political class and military leaders in order to promote transparency and ensure mutual confidence, he stressed. Ogomudia said: "It is in the interest of the nation, for the growth and consolidation of democratic culture and ethos that civil-military relations should be developed in all fronts and ensured to be cordial at all times.

Nigerian democracy prevents african wars

BBC NEWS, 5/25/2K

While still celebrating the new freedoms associated with the restoration of democracy, Nigerians have been forced to think deeply about the country's future. In most parts of the country there is now a clamour for a greater devolution of power to the regions, and to the many ethnic groups which were carelessly thrown together by the British colonialists to form modern-day Nigeria. Since May 1999, several ethnic and pressure groups have emerged or gained prominence in Nigeria. They include Odua Peoples Congress (fighting for the south-western
Oduduwa States); Arewa Peoples Congress (protecting the interest of ethnic northern Nigeria) and Middle Belt Forum (canvasing for their geographical identity which is distinct from northern Nigeria). Its as

if there is no cartilage between the bones for as long as we are thrown together in this way the painful friction is bound to continue argues Ayo Ube, a leading Lagos
human rights activist.

And african conflict goes nuclear

Dr. Jeffrey Deutsch, founder of the Rabid Tiger Project, a political risk consulting and related research firm, 11-18-02, http://www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html The Rabid Tiger Project believes that a nuclear war is most likely to start in Africa. Civil wars in the Congo (the country formerly known as Zaire), Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone, and domestic instability in Zimbabwe, Sudan and other countries, as well as occasional brushfire and other wars (thanks in part to "national" borders that cut across tribal ones) turn into a really nasty stew. We've got all too many rabid tigers and potential rabid tigers, who are willing to push the button rather than risk being seen as wishy-washy in the face of a mortal threat and overthrown. Geopolitically speaking, Africa is open range. Very few countries in Africa are beholden to any particular power. South Africa is a major exception in this respect - not to mention in that she also probably already has the Bomb. Thus, outside powers can more easily find client states there than, say, in Europe where the political lines have long since been drawn, or Asia where many of the countries (China, India, Japan) are powers unto themselves and don't need any "help," thank you. Thus, an African war can attract outside involvement very quickly. Of course, a proxy war alone may not induce the Great Powers to fight each other. But an African nuclear strike can ignite a much broader conflagration, if the other powers are interested in a fight. Certainly, such a strike would in the first place have been facilitated by outside help - financial, scientific, engineering, etc. Africa is an ocean of troubled waters, and some people love to go fishing.

Impact Pakistan
US CMR is key to preventing Pakistani collapse
Barton, Codirector Post-Conflict Reconstruction Project and Senior Adviser, International Security Program at the CSIS and Unger, fellow and policy director of the Foreign Assistance Reform project at Brookings April 2009. (Frederick and Noam, civil-military relations, fostering development, and
expanding civilian capacity , http://csis.org/publication/civil-military-relations-fostering-developmentand-expanding-civilian-capacity) The security rationale for stability and development in poor and fragile states is based on the understanding that strengthening the economy of states and ensuring social equity are in the short and long term interests of the United States. Stable states pose the United States with far fewer security challenges than their weak and fragile counterparts. Indeed, stable states with healthy economies offer the United States opportunities for trade and represent potential partners in the fields of security and development. In contrast, weak and failing states pose

serious challenges to the security of United States, including terrorism, drug production, money laundering and people smuggling. In addition, state weakness has
frequently proven to have the propensity to spread to neighboring states, which in time can destabilize entire regions. While the group acknowledged that the cases of Iraq and Afghanistan are particular in scope and complexity (and may not be repeated in the near future by the U.S.), participants broadly concurred that the lessons of these challenges are that the United States must improve and expand its stabilization and development capabilities. In particular, cases such as Pakistan and Nigeria, huge countries with strategic importance, make clear that a military response to many

internal conflicts will be severely limited. As such, increased emphasis on civilian capacity within the U.S. government and civil-military relations in general, will greatly improve the United States ability to respond to such crises in the future.

Pakistani coup leads to India-Pakistan nuclear war

The Washington Post, 10/21/2001

The prospect of Pakistan being taken over by Islamic extremists is especially worrisome because it possesses nuclear weapons. The betting among military strategists is that India, another nuclear power, would not stand idly by, if it appeared that the Pakistani nuclear arsenal were about to fall into the hands of extremists. A preemptive action by India to destroy Pakistan's nuclear stockpile could provoke a new war on the subcontinent. The U.S. military has conducted more than 25 war games involving a confrontation between a nuclear-armed India and Pakistan, and each has resulted in nuclear war,
said retired Air Force Col. Sam Gardiner, an expert on strategic games. Having both the United States and India fighting Muslims would play into the hands of bin Laden, warned Mackubin Owens, a strategist at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I. "He could point out once again that this is the new

crusade," Owens said. The next step that worries experts is the regional effect of turmoil in Pakistan. If its government fell, the experts fear, other Muslim governments friendly to the United States, such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt, might follow suit. "The ultimate nightmare is a pan-Islamic regime that possesses both oil and nuclear weapons," said Harlan Ullman, a defense analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. Ullman argued that the arrival of U.S. troops in Pakistan to fight the anti-terrorism war in Afghanistan could inadvertently help bin Laden achieve his goal of sparking an anti-American revolt in the country. Andrew Bacevich, a professor of international relations at Boston University, said it is possible "that we are sliding toward a summer-of-1914 sequence of events" -- when a cascading series of international incidents spun out of control and led to World War I.

Pakistan insurgency causes nuclear volleys at Kashmir

Kagan, Resident Scholar at AEI and OHanlon, Senior Fellow @ the Brooking Institution, 11/18/2007 (Frederick W. and Michael, Pakistans Collapse, Our Problem New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18kagan.html?_r=1) AS the government of Pakistan totters, we must face a fact: the

United States simply could not stand by as a nuclear-armed Pakistan descended into the abyss. Nor would it
be strategically prudent to withdraw our forces from an improving situation in Iraq to cope with a deteriorating one in Pakistan. We need to think now about our feasible military options in Pakistan, should it really come to that. We do not intend to be fear mongers. Pakistans officer corps and

ruling elites remain largely moderate and more interested in building a strong, modern state than in exporting terrorism or nuclear weapons to the highest bidder. But then again, Americans felt similarly about the shahs regime in Iran until it was too late. Moreover, Pakistans intelligence services contain enough sympathizers and supporters of the Afghan Taliban, and enough nationalists bent on seizing the disputed province of Kashmir from India, that there are grounds for real worries. The most likely possible dangers are these: a complete collapse of Pakistani government rule that allows an extreme Islamist movement to fill the vacuum; a total loss of federal control over outlying provinces, which splinter along ethnic and tribal lines; or a struggle within the Pakistani military in which the minority sympathetic to the Taliban and Al Qaeda try to establish Pakistan as a state sponsor of terrorism. All possible military initiatives to
avoid those possibilities are daunting. With 160 million people, Pakistan is more than five times the size of Iraq. It would take a long time to move large numbers of American forces

halfway across the world. And unless we had precise information about the location of all of Pakistans nuclear weapons and materials, we could not rely on bombing or using Special Forces to destroy them. The task of stabilizing a collapsed
Pakistan is beyond the means of the United States and its allies. Rule-of-thumb estimates suggest that a force of more than a million troops would be required for a country of this size. Thus, if we have any hope of success, we would have to act before a complete government collapse, and we would need the cooperation of moderate Pakistani forces. One possible plan would be a Special Forces operation with the limited goal of preventing Pakistans nuclear materials and warheads from getting into the wrong hands. Given the degree to which Pakistani nationalists cherish these assets, it is

unlikely the United States would get permission to destroy them. Somehow, American forces would have to team with Pakistanis to secure critical sites and possibly to move the material to a safer place. For the United States, the safest bet
would be shipping the material to someplace like New Mexico; but even pro-American Pakistanis would be unlikely to cooperate. More likely, we would have to settle for establishing a remote redoubt within Pakistan, with the nuclear technology guarded by elite Pakistani forces backed up (and watched over) by crack international troops. It is realistic to think that such a mission might be undertaken within days of a decision to act. The price for rapid action and secrecy, however, would probably be a very small international coalition. A second, broader option would involve supporting the core of the Pakistani armed forces as they sought to hold the country together in the face of an ineffective government, seceding border regions and Al Qaeda and Taliban assassination attempts against the leadership. This would require a sizable combat force not only from the United States, but ideally also other Western powers and moderate Muslim nations. Even if we were not so committed in Iraq and Afghanistan, Western powers would need months to get the troops there. Fortunately, given the longstanding effectiveness of Pakistans security forces, any process of state decline probably would be gradual, giving us the time to act. So, if we got a large number of troops into the country, what would they do? The most likely directive would be to help Pakistans military and security forces hold the countrys center primarily the region around the capital, Islamabad, and the populous areas like Punjab Province to its south. We would also have to be wary of internecine warfare within the Pakistani security forces. ProAmerican moderates could well win a fight against extremist sympathizers on their own. But they might need help if splinter forces or radical Islamists took control of parts of the country containing crucial nuclear materials. The task of retaking any such regions and reclaiming custody of any nuclear weapons would be a priority for our troops. If a holding operation in the nations center was successful, we would probably then seek to establish order in the parts of Pakistan where extremists operate. Beyond propping up the state, this would benefit American efforts in Afghanistan by depriving terrorists of the sanctuaries they have long enjoyed in Pakistans tribal and frontier regions. The great paradox of the post-

cold war world is that we are both safer, day to day, and in greater peril than before. There was a time when volatility in places like Pakistan was mostly a humanitarian worry; today it is as much a threat to our basic security as Soviet tanks once were. We must be militarily and diplomatically prepared to keep ourselves safe in such a world. Pakistan may be the next big test.

Impact Readiness
Cooperation between civilians and the military is key to troop morale and readinessIraq proves
Owens, associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College, 2005 (Mackubin Thomas, Judging Rumsfeld National Review
http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens200501050715.asp) In applying agency theory to civil-military relations, Feaver

acknowledges the unsuitability of the term "shirking" when describing the action of the military agent when it pursues its own preference rather than those of the civilian principal. But he contends that the alternatives are even less suitable. Feaver argues that shirking by the military takes many forms. The most obvious form is disobedience, but it also includes foot dragging and leaks to the press designed to undercut policy or individual policy-makers. Shirking as foot-dragging provides an important bureaucratic context for Rumsfeld's decision to recommend invading Iraq when he did, rejecting the call for a larger initial ground force or to wait for the Fourth Infantry
Division to redeploy to the south after Turkey refused to permit the opening of a northern front.

Rumsfeld believed that civilian control of the military had eroded during the Clinton administration: If a service didn't want to do something as in the Balkans in the 1990s it would simply overstate the force requirements. Accordingly,
the secretary and others in the Pentagon interpreted the Army's call for a larger force as one more example of what they perceived as foot dragging. It is clear that Rumsfeld is guilty of errors of judgment regarding both transformation and the conduct of the Iraq war. With regard to the former, his "business" approach to transformation is potentially risky. As Fred

Kagan has observed, Rumsfeld's approach stresses an economic concept of efficiency at the expense of military and political effectiveness. But war is far more than a mere targeting drill. As the Iraq war has demonstrated, the destruction of the "target set" and the resulting military success does not translate automatically into the achievement of the political goals for which the war was fought in the first place. But the U.S. military does need to transform and, as suggested above, the actual practice of transformation in the Rumsfeld Pentagon has been flexible and adaptive, not doctrinaire. With regard to the Iraq war, Rumsfeld's original position regarding the Iraq war was much more optimistic than the facts on the ground have
warranted. But he has eventually acknowledged changes in the character of the war and adapted to them. In addition, Rumsfeld's critics have been no more prescient than he. We should not be

When it comes to civil-military relations, Rumsfeld's attempt to reassert civilian control of the military is certainly proper, but there is a real danger that the cost of Rumsfeld's approach will be a dispirited and demoralized uniformed military. Right now, the perception among officers is that Rumsfeld wants to surround himself with "yes-men" and that dissent will not be tolerated. This is a recipe for
surprised. Again, as Clausewitz reminds us, war takes place in the realm of chance and uncertainty.

disaster. As I wrote in NRO in July, Rumsfeld needs to take a cue from Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, and other great military leaders of democracies. By all means, he should challenge, cajole, probe, and question his uniformed military and then challenge them again. But he should also encourage true dialogue, in the hope of achieving a dynamic, creative tension within the Pentagon on everything from war fighting to transformation. This is the path to healthy civil-military relations and to true civilian control of the military.

Relations are key to well planned and effective military strategies

Peter D. Feaver June 1999 (Feaver (Ph. D., Harvard) is the professor of political science and public policy at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Annual Review of Political Science, Vol. 2: 211-241, http://fds.duke.edu/db/aas/PoliticalScience/pfeaver ) It follows that, in a democracy, the

hierarchy of de jure authority favors civilians over the military, even in cases where the underlying distribution of de facto power favors the military. Regardless of how strong the military is, civilians are supposed to remain the political masters. While decision making may in fact be politics as usualthe exercise of power in pursuit of endsit is politics within the context of a particular
normative conception of whose will should prevail. Civilian competence in the general sense extends even beyond their competence in a particular sense; that is, civilians are morally and politically competent to make the decisions even if they do not possess the relevant technical competence in the form of expertise (Dahl 1985). This is the core of the democratic alternative to Plato's philosopher king. Although the expert may understand the issue better, the expert is not in a position to determine the value that the people attach to different issue outcomes

. In

the civil-military context, this means that the military may be best able to identify the threat and the appropriate responses to that threat for a given level of risk, but only the civilian can set the level of acceptable risk for society. The military can propose the level of armaments necessary to have a certain probability of
successful defense against our enemies, but only the civilian can say what probability of success society is willing to underwrite. The military can describe in some detail the nature of the

threat posed by a particular enemy, but only the civilian can decide whether to feel threatened, and if so, how or even whether to respond. The military assesses the risk, the civilian judges it. The democratic imperative insists that this precedence
applies even if civilians are woefully underequipped to understand the technical issues at stake.

Regardless of how superior the military view of a situation may be, the civilian view trumps it. Civilians should get what they ask for, even if it is not what they really want. In other words, civilians have a right to be wrong .

Increased civilian control improves the effectiveness of the military empirically true
Owens, associate dean of academics and professor of national security affairs at the Naval War College Oct. 2007 (Mackubin Thomas, Salute and Disobey: Failures Many Fathers, Foreign Affairs
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070901faresponse86511/richard-b-myers-richard-h-kohn-mackubinthomas-owens-lawrence-j-korb-michael-c-desch/salute-and-disobey.html)

Desch is correct to observe that there is a troubling rift between the uniformed U.S. military and civilian leaders (although it is not as great as he suggests). But Desch errs when he blames most of the current problems on the Bush administration in general and on former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in particular. In fact, the uniformed military deserves a significant share of the blame as well. Desch charges the administration with willfully ignoring military advice, initiating the Iraq war with too small a force, ignoring the need for preparations for postconflict stabilization, failing to foresee the insurgency, and not adapting once things started to go wrong. This criticism is predicated on two

questionable assumptions. The first is that soldiers deserve to have a voice in making policy regarding the use of the military -- indeed, that they have the right to insist that their views be adopted. The second is that the judgment of soldiers is inherently superior to that of civilians when it comes to military affairs -- and that in times of war, accordingly, civilians should defer to military expertise. Both of these assumptions are questionable at best. They are also at odds with the principles and practice of U.S. civil-military relations, which subordinate the uniformed military to civilian authority even in what might seem to be the purely military realm. As
Eliot Cohen demonstrates in Supreme Command, a book that Desch cites disapprovingly, successful wartime presidents, such as Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, "interfered" extensively and frequently with military operations. Desch's first assumption rests on a misreading of McMaster's Dereliction of Duty. Many serving officers believe that Dereliction of Duty concludes that

the Joint Chiefs of Staff should have more openly voiced their opposition to the Johnson administration's strategy of gradualism in Vietnam and then resigned rather than carry out the policy. But in fact, this is a serious misinterpretation that has reinforced the increasingly widespread belief that officers should be advocates of particular policies rather than simply serving in their traditional advisory roles. Desch's second assumption -- that soldiers have better judgment than civilian policymakers on military affairs -- is called into question by a review of the historical record. Lincoln constantly prodded George McClellan to take the offensive in Virginia in 1862, while McClellan constantly whined about insufficient forces. During World War II, there were many
differences between Roosevelt and his military advisers. General George Marshall, the greatest soldierstatesman since George Washington, opposed arms shipments to the United Kingdom in 1940 and argued for a cross-channel invasion before the United States was ready. History has vindicated

Lincoln and Roosevelt. Many in the military blame the U.S. defeat in Vietnam on civilians. But in fact, the operational approach in Vietnam was forged by the uniformed military. General William Westmoreland adopted the counterproductive strategy of emphasizing attrition of Peoples' Army of Vietnam forces in
a "war of the big battalions" -- sweeps through remote jungle areas in an effort to destroy the enemy with superior firepower. By the time his successor could adopt a more fruitful approach, it was too late. During the planning for Operation Desert Storm in 1990-91, General Norman Schwarzkopf, then the head of U.S. Central Command, called for a frontal assault against Iraqi positions in southern Kuwait followed by a drive toward Kuwait City. That plan would

probably not have achieved the foremost military objective of the ground war: the destruction of the three divisions of Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard. Accordingly, the civilian leadership rejected it and ordered Schwarzkopf to return to the drawing board. The revised plan was far more imaginative and effective.

Collapse of CMR decreases readiness

Peter Feaver May 1996 (Feaver (Ph. D., Harvard) is the professor of political science and public policy at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, Delegation, Monitoring, and Civilian Control of the Military: Agency Theory and American Civil-Military Relations, project on U.S. Post Cold-War Civil Military Relations, http://www.wcfia.harvard.edu/olin/publications/workingpapers/civil_military/no4.htm) Most political applications of the principal-agent framework have concerned domestic issues. The

special concern at the heart of the civil-military relationship -- controlling the use of deadly force -- introduces peculiar twists that affect the decisionmaking calculus of both
principals and agents. The first and most obvious distinctive feature is that the stakes are much higher. If an elected representative turns up a cropper, the damage to the polity (even with the highest elected office) is bounded. Lousy political agents can commit many sins of omission and

commission but they are hard-pressed to bring down the republic. Failure to get the military agency problem right can result in one of two grave disasters: the military agent might turn on society and rob it of its political freedom or the military agent may fail on the battlefield and leave the polity vulnerable to conquest by external enemies. In almost all cases, human lives will be lost in the process. The cost of failure, the price of trial and error, is paralyzingly prohibitive. The very
existence of the state is at stake and a catastrophic failure can result in the extermination of the polity that initiated the agency relationship. Of course, the fate of the republic does not hang on

every military issue and there are many mundane matters where the stakes seem small. In general, however, the consequences of failure are profound and this will cast a shadow over the actors' decisionmaking.

Good civil-military relations and public support are key to military effectiveness
Kohn, Prof. of History and Chair of the Curriculum in Peace, War, and Defense at the University of North Carolina,and Feaver ,Associate Professor of Political Science at Duke University and Director of the Triangle Institute for Security Studies, 2001 (Richard H and Peter D. Civilians and Soldiers)
To summarize, we have demonstrated that there is a military and civilian gap, at least when we compare higher-ranking elite military officers and civilian elites. On some measures, elite military officers

appear far more similar to the mass public in their pattern of confidence in major American institutions than do the presumed leaders of those institutions, the civilian elites, This should alert us to subtleties underlying confidence in the

military. In the rest of this chapter, we provide some exploratory examinations of how the notions of "confidence" may be profitably unpacked. The analysis thus far suggests that confidence

in the military may not be as solid and stable as the commonly reported Gallup results imply. People who have little or no contact with the military express lower levels of
confidence in the military. The effect is sharpest at the elite level, where an absence of contact with the military can have a large impact on expressed confidence, Nevertheless, majorities even

among the least pro-military groups express confidence in the military. Thus, to a certain extent, the conventional wisdom is correct: American civilmilitary relations are blessed by the remarkable degree of confidence the military enjoys from the mass and elite public. But does this confidence extend beyond a
mere appreciation that the military is capable of doing what it is askedto do? Is there an underlying sense of alienation between the groups, acknowledged or latent? Is there a consensus on how civil-

military relations affects military effectiveness or on the day-to-day workings of civilian control? To answer these questions, we analyze civilian and military opinion across a broader range of topics.

Impact Terrorism
CMR key to prevent terrorism
Cronin, Director of the Institute for National Strategic Studies, 9/19/2008 (Patrick M., Irregular
Warfare: New Challenges for Civil-Military Relations Small Wars Journal http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2008/09/print/irregular-warfare-new-challeng/)

The war that we are in and must win (to paraphrase Secretary of Defense Robert Gates) pits us against nonstate groups that seek to advance extremist agendas through violence. Accordingly, irregular warfare will be the dominant form of conflict among adversaries in the early years of the 21st century. To succeed in these messy and profoundly political wars, the United States needs a framework that appropriately and effectively balances the relationships between civilian and military leaders and makes the best use of their unique and
complementary portfolios.

US will retaliate risks nuclear conflagration

Speice, 2006 (Patrick F., Jr. "Negligence and nuclear nonproliferation: eliminating the current liability
barrier to bilateral U.S.-Russian nonproliferation assistance programs." William and Mary Law Review 47.4 (Feb 2006): 1427(59). Expanded Academic ASAP) The potential consequences of the unchecked spread of nuclear knowledge and material to terrorist groups that seek to cause mass destruction in the United States are truly horrifying. A terrorist attack with a nuclear weapon would be devastating in terms of immediate human and economic losses. (49) Moreover, there would be immense political pressure in the United States

to discover the perpetrators and retaliate with nuclear weapons, massively increasing the number of casualties and potentially triggering a full-scale nuclear conflict. (50) In addition to the threat posed by terrorists, leakage of nuclear knowledge and
material from Russia will reduce the barriers that states with nuclear ambitions face and may trigger widespread proliferation of nuclear weapons. (51) This proliferation will increase the risk of nuclear attacks against the United States or its allies by hostile states, (52) as well as increase the likelihood that regional conflicts will draw in the United States and escalate to the use of nuclear weapons. (53)

Cuba Relations Add-On

Gitmo Internal
Returning Guantanamo is a vital prerequisite to any US Cuban relations and a black stain on its relationship with Latin America
Rueckert 13
Phineas Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs GUANTNAMO BAY: CLOSING THE GTMO DETENTION CENTER IS A WILTING OLIVE BRANCH TO CUBA AND THE REST OF LATIN AMERICA Council on Hemispheric Affairs June 4, 2013
In his annual counterterrorism speech on May 23, President Barack Obama again vowed to revamp efforts to close the detention center at the Guantnamo Bay naval base in Cuba (GTMO). The

GTMO detention center, Obama stated, casts the United States as a nation that flouts the rule of law and costs $350 million USD per year to maintain. He also called for congress to lift the moratorium on the transfer of 56 detainees from GTMO to their homes in Yemen and facilitate
other transfers to third countries. [1] While the Obama administration has revealed that 86 of the 166 prisoners at GTMO have been cleared for release or transfer to other prisons, political pressure from obstructionist conservatives in the United States has prevented any action from taking place, leaving these detainees in a state of prolonged limbo. Detainees staged a hunger strike

The continued operation of the GTMO detention center is a shameful indictment of a backward and often hypocritical foreign policy, in which the United States legitimizes leaving Cuba on the State Sponsors of Terrorism List and simultaneously operates a morally objectionable detention center with a long history of human rights violations. While closing down the detention center and transferring detainees would be a step in the right direction for the Obama administration in terms of improving its poor human rights record, there is a larger issue at hand that has been ignored by both the administration and mainstream media outlets. In addition to being a detention center, Guantnamo Bay houses a naval base that represents the imperialist past of the United States in Cuba and the rest of Latin America; this base will remain operational even if Obama succeeds at closing the detention center. Ultimately, if Obama truly wanted to improve relations with Latin America, through a change of policy on Guantnamo, he would not only close the GTMO detention center, but also return the entire naval base to Cuba. The Legal Black
this springto which the United States responded not by changing its policy, but by force-feeding the prisoners. Hole While the GTMO detention center opened in 2002 as a response to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the U.S. war in Afghanistan, the Guantnamo Bay naval base has been under U.S. control since the signing of the Platt Amendment in 1901. The amendment gave the United States the right to intervene in Cuban affairs for the preservation of Cuban independence and legitimized the use of the Guantnamo Bay naval base by permitting the United States to buy or lease the land from Cuba.[2] By taking advantage of a weak and powerless Cuban state just emerging from a difficult war and beguiling Cuba into complying with the treaties through an offer of trade subsidies, the Platt Amendment and the Cuban-American Treaty (1903) that followed

The United States imposed the Platt Amendment on Cuba during the height of its imperialist strategy in order to protect American commercial interestsespecially investments in sugar against Cuban labor radicalism.[3] Rather than preserving Cuban independence, the Platt Amendment and the open-ended lease of Guantnamo
were one-sided agreements that failed to take into account the needs of the Cuban population. Bay to the United States served to fortify a U.S. military presence on the island, despite the protestations of an unwilling host. Source: www.radioguantanamo.icrt.cu Since the 1959 Cuban Revolution, the Cuban government has repeatedly questioned the legality of the United States holding of Guantnamo Bay and unsuccessfully demanded that the base be closed and reverted to Cuba. The Guantnamo Public Memory Project calls the Guantnamo Bay naval base a legal black hole because of the controversial wording of

the Platt

Amendment. While the amendment granted Cuba ultimate sovereignty over Guantnamo, it simultaneously gave the United States complete jurisdiction and control over the
territory.[4] This wording resulted in a situation in which the United States fully dictated which laws applied to Guantnamo, and therefore, until the landmark ruling of Boumediene v. Bush in

also meant that the United States could decide when, if ever, it wants to return the base to Cubaundercutting Cubas ability to exercise its ultimate sovereignty over the land. Obamas Failed Attempts to Close the GTMO Detention Center Since his
2008, was able to legitimize its denial of constitutional rights to detainees. It 2007 presidential campaign, President Obama has maintained that he intends to close the GTMO detention center, but was only able to make small steps toward that goal during his first presidential term. When, in 2009, Obama signed executive orders to close the Guantnamo Bay detention center within a year, as well as to establish an interagency task force to review his administrations detention policies and individual cases of Guantnamo detainees, it appeared that he might put the issue behind him. However, he quickly ran into trouble regarding how to try prisoners convicted for their participation in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks without inflaming U.S. public opinion. Furthermore, his initiative to transfer detainees to the Thomson Correctional Center in Illinois backfired in May 2010, when the House Armed Services Committee unanimously passed a defense measure that prohibited the creation of detention centers in the United States. Source: www.commondreams.org Since his reelection in November 2012, Obama has re-engaged with the possibility of closing the Guantnamo Bay detention center in part due to political pressure from liberals and human rights activists. A hunger strike by Guantnamo Bay detainees who have been held indefinitely at the detention center (despite many being cleared for release) came to a head in April this year, and is probably what prompted Obama to more forcefully address the issue in his counterterrorism speech. According to Michael Crowleys

article, Can Obama End the War on Terror?, published last month in TIME Magazine, Obama has an obviously sincere desire to bring the war against Al-Qaeda to a close and close the books on Guantnamo, however, he also lacks the power to make these things happen on his own.[5] He will need congress to overturn the law preventing the t ransfer of nearly 50 detainees who have been held indefinitely at Guantnamo to prisons in the United States. COHA Research Fellow Keith Bolender, who has written extensively on Cuba, believes, Obama does want to shut down the center, but will continue to find it difficult to come to a compromise with the Republicans. If Obama Closes the GTMO D etention Center, So What? For many people in the United States, including President Obama, closing Guantnamo Bay means shutting down the detention center but leaving the naval base open. However, closing only the detention center would do little to improve the relationship between Cuba and the United States. Timothy Ashby, a Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and a former senior official at the U.S.

If the entire base were shut down and handed back to Cuba, I think the Cuban government would react favorably and see it as a goodwill gesture. But that will not happen even though the actual base is an
Department of Commerce has observed: I do not think closure of the GTMO center would have any impact on bilateral relations with Cuba. unnecessary expense and serves no more of a strategic purpose than the detention center. For Obama, closing the Guantnamo Bay detention center has more to do with improving the image of the United States in the world than it does with improving U.S. relations with Cuba or other Latin American countries and the Caribbean. As Obama decried in his May 23 speech, the Guantnamo Bay detention center is an unnecessary moral and financial burden on the United States. But the naval base itself, which Obama has never suggested closing, still serves a strategic purpose of projecting U.S. military power in the Western Hemisphere. Washingtons cursory discourse concerning Guantnamo Baywhich neglects to consider reverting the naval base to Cuba

the continued presence of U.S. troops at Guantnamoregardless of whether or not those troops are there to detain terroristsshows that Washington is not ready to step down from its traditional strategic/militaristic position in Latin America or improve relations with Cuba . Bolender argued that: Guantnamo is a symbol of the imperialistic past [of the United States] towards Latin America, and in particular Cuba. The detention center should be shut down, those not charged freed immediately, and the rest, if any are truly guilty, sent to the United States. The bigger situation is that the base itself, forced upon Cuba more than 100 years ago, should be returned to Cuba. [U.S. citizens] have no right to be there, except under a one-sided treaty that the Cuban government has long condemned. That would certainly improve relations between the two
as an optionsuggests that its imperialist inclinations have not fully abated. Broadly speaking,

countries , but the Americans have made it clear they have no intention of returning what rightfully belongs to Cuba. Obamas failure to address the imperial history of the
Guantnamo Bay naval base or respond to (let alone acknowledge) the Cuban governments pleas for the naval base to be returned to Cuba are symbolic of Washingtons unflinching Latin

Washingtons maintenance of the naval base in Guantnamo remains an obstacle to developing a policy of mutual respect in U.S.-Latin American relations.
America policy. Even as it shows faint signs of winding down its global war on terror as evidenced in Obamas speech

Impact Drugs
The US Cuban relationship is critical to check drug trafficking in the Caribbean
Lee 9
Rensselaer Lee an authority on international crime and narcotics and nuclear security issues. A Stanford Ph.D., he is president of Global Advisory Services, Senior Fellow at the Forgien Policy Research Institute -- Testimony before the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Cuba, Drugs, and U.S.-Cuban Relations April 29, 2009 https://www.fpri.org/docs/alt/testimony.20090429.lee_.cubadrugs.pdf This is the story of a Caribbean state that at one time was deeply (if selectively) involved in the international drug trade, becoming now a state for which suppressing the drug traffic seems to be a foremost national priority. This apparent transformation and accompanying tectonic shifts in the international security environment, have some important implications for U.S.-Cuban

relations The United States and Cuba have a strong mutual interest in closing off trafficking routes in the western Caribbean and in preventing attempts by Mexican and South American cocaine mafias to set up shop in Cuba proper. Yet they have not entered into a formal agreement to fight drugs even though Havana maintains such agreements with at
least 32 other countries and what cooperation exists occurs episodically, on a case-by-case basis.

Washington and Havana need to engage more fully on the issue, deploying intelligence and interdiction assets to disrupt smuggling networks through and around Cuba. Washington hitherto has shied away from a deeper relationship, fearing that it would lead to a political opening and confer a measure of legitimacy on the Castro regime. Yet current strategic realities in the region and Havana's own willingness to

engage in such a relationship, as well as impending leadership changes in Cuba, argue for rethinking these concerns, even in the absence of formal diplomatic ties. . Cuba's relations with the international drug trade are historically complex and controversial and deserve some mention here. The Castro regime, on its accession to power in 1959, largely wiped out what had been a flourishing domestic market for cocaine and marijuana that was closely associated with the mob-run Havana casinonightclub scene. Despite this achievement, opportunistic ties with foreign drugtrafficking organizations apparently persisted. Allegations of Cuban state complicity in the drug trade date to the early 1960s, although hard evidence of a Cuban drug connection did not surface until the 1980s. Such cozy relationships reached a height in the late 1980s, when a group of Cuban Ministry of Interior officials, led by MC department head Antonio de la Guardia, together with representatives of Colombias Medellin cartel coordinated some 15 successful 2 smuggling operations through Cuba to the United States which according to Cuban officials moved a total of six tons of cocaine and earned the conspirators $3.4 million. Also complicit in these activities, though tangentially, was Division General Arnaldo Ochoa Sanchez, a decorated hero of the Cuban revolution. An Ochoa emissary met with Medellin cartel chief Pablo Escobar in 1988 to discuss a cocaine-smuggling venture and also a proposal to set up a cocaine laboratory in Cuba. The discussions also touched on another topic and this is what Escobar really wanted most the transfer of some surface-to-air missiles to the cartel in Colombia. The trafficking schemes never materialized, but in early 1990 the Colombian National Police discovered an assortment of 10 ground-to-air and air-to-air missiles of French manufacture (apparently originating in Angola) in a Bogot residence belonging to an assassin employed by the Medellin cartel. The Ochoa-de la Guardia machinations and the subsequent trials, executions, and purges marked the beginning of a watershed in the Cuban governments policies toward illegal drugs. In subsequent years the regime made a visible and mostly successful effort to distance itself from the international drug trade, setting up new and elaborate drugfighting institutions, establishing narcotics cooperation agreements with European and other Latin American states, and adopting an increasingly prohibitionist approach toward the sale and use of drugs inside Cuba. (This, incidentally, contrasts sharply with the harm-reduction approach being advocated by three former Latin American presidents.) This policy shift was attributable to three main factors: 1. First, the corruption scandals of the late 1980s brought home to Cubas leaders the reality that in Cuba as elsewhere in Latin America the illegal drug trade could spawn independent centers of power, posing potential challenges to the existing political order. Generally speaking, the Ochoa-de la Guardia conspirators tended to favor the liberalizing tendencies that at the time were occurring elsewhere in the Soviet bloc, and Castro must have wanted to prevent the emergence of a narco-funded reformist movement that could weaken the totalitarian underpinnings of the Cuban system. 2. Second, the disintegration of the Soviet Union and the socialist bloc eliminated the protective mantle of Soviet patronage that had sustained Cuba for years, and thus forced Cuba to reorient its entire foreign economic posture to seek vastly improved trade, investment, and tourism ties with the West. To do this, Cuba needed to burnish its international image and to project an aura of respectability. This meant taking visible domestic and foreign policy steps to try to erase the drug stigma acquired in earlier years. 3. The third factor was the emergence in the 1990s of a domestic consumer market for cocaine, crack, and marijuana, which was propelled by the increasing inflow of dollars from the tourist economy and by remittances sent from Cuban communities abroad to their relatives on the island. In what appeared to be a replay of the 1950s, drugs circulated freely in Havanas nightclubs, bordellos, streets, and hotels. The internal drug market was never large, at least in relation to what we see here in the United States, but it alarmed Cuban authorities because it pre-supposed the development of a sphere of criminality outside the regimes effective control. An interesting question is: Where did all of these drugs come from? The main source, at least according to Cuban official statistics, were so-called recalos, bulk packages of cocaine and marijuana that are dumped at sea, and then carried by wind and tides to Cubas shores the detritus of failed rendezvous between Colombian planes or Jamaican marijuana carriers and go-fast boats based in Florida. Drugs are also brought to the island by foreign tourists, usually for their own use, but sometimes with the intent of introducing them into the Cuban market. A third source is domestic marijuana cultivation, which yields a relatively low-quality leaf, mainly in Cubas eastern provinces (Granma, Santiago de Cuba). Finally, there was cocaine that leaked into the domestic Cuban market from the trafficking pipeline that Interior Ministry officials set up through Cuba in the late 1980s. This pipeline, I suspect, carried a lot more than the six tons officially acknowledged by the Cuban regime. The policies adopted by the Castro regime to counteract the perceived drug threat to Cuban society took several forms. One was to strengthen counter-narcotics legislation. Between 1988 and 1999 maximum penalties for drug dealing in Cubas criminal code increased from 7-15 years imprisonment to 20 years to death. Money laundering was made a crime punishable by up to 12 years in jail, and Cuban banks were compelled to adopt know your customer" rules and to maintain records of transactions of more than 10,000 pesos (roughly $10,000 equivalent) for five years. In 2003, the government tightened the screws further with a decree prescribing the confiscation of business and residential property where drugs were produced, sold, stored, or consumed, a step that precipitated nationwide house-to-house searches to root out evidence of drug crimes. Drug interdiction efforts were expanded to deny Cuban airspace and territorial waters to traffickers. Much of the emphasis here was on clearing Cubas coast of recalos of cocaine and marijuana and to this end the regime mobilized various social organizations youth brigades, Committees for the Defense of the Revolution, fishing collectives, tourism workers, et. al. to cooperate with the Cuban Border Guard in

patrolling the islands shores. Also, to facilitate information-sharing on suspected drug shipments crossing Cuban territory, in 1999 Havana allowed the stationing of a U.S. Coast Guard officer in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. On the demand-reduction front Cuba set up a vast network of nearly 200 mental health centers, staffed by psychologists and family physicians, which were charged with preventing the spread of drug abuse within the Cuban population. Some of these facilities provided in-house treatment and rehabilitation for cocaine and marijuana addicts. The regime mounted an extensive education and prevention campaign targeting schools and youth organizations, evidently aiming to insulate the younger generation from the scourge of drugs. By some indications, the regimes draconian drug policies seem to have work ed, at least up to a point. My contacts within the Cuban public health system have told me that the average price of a gram of cocaine increased from about $15-20 in the 1999-2003 period to $90 in mid-2008, and the price for a joint of imported marijuana from $1 to $10 over the same years. Also, admissions of the numbers of new entrants into drug treatment facilities in the Havana area have dwindled significantly since the 1990s. Now on the foreign policy front: looking back in time, narcotics-trafficking was a focal point of conflict in U.S.-Cuban relations for most of the pre-1990 years, except for a brief period during the Carter administration. The focus gradually shifted to cooperation in the 1990s, as the Cuban leadership ostensibly severed connections to the international drug trade. Cooperation and information-sharing between the two countries have netted a few high profile seizures, arrests, and extraditions, but all of this has occurred rather episodically, without an umbrella agreement on counter-narcotics cooperation, (although Cuba has concluded such agreements with many other countries inside and outside the hemisphere). Such an agreed framework could set the stage for a more substantive level of engagement on drugs. For example, we could train and equip Cuban Border Guards and Interior Ministry operatives, we could conduct joint naval patrols with Cuba in the western Caribbean, we could coordinate investigation of regional trafficking networks and suspicious financial transactions through Cuban banks and commercial entities, and we could station DEA and FBI contingents in the U.S. Interests Section in Havana. We could also negotiate a ship-rider agreement with the Cuban authorities, and possibly even the right to pursue drug-laden vessels and aircraft seeking safe haven in Cuban territory. How far Havana and Washington would be willing to proceed in these directions is unclear, since the

political barriers on both

sides are formidable. Yet the prospects for more productive collaboration against the hemispheric drug threat seem a lot more promising today than in the past. In any event, failure to exploit Cuba's law enforcement and intelligence assets to good advantage leaves a major gap in U.S. defenses against drug trafficking through the Caribbean. Interdiction
successes n Mexico seem likely to augment this flow down the road, a further reason to closely monitor trafficking trends in a Caribbean country only 90 miles from U.S. shores. The drug threat from Cuba seems destined to increase as the Castro regime's revolutionary order loses its hold and appeal, as the island's economic ties with the outside world continue to expand, and as criminally-inclined Cuban nationals seek alliances with South American and Mexican drug kingpins. Such an outcome is hardly in the best interests of the United States and other countries in the hemisphere.

Drug Trafficking in Latin America causes crime, violence, corruption and instability
Seelke et. al. 11
Clare Ribando is a Specialist in Latin American Affairs for the Congressional Research Service and holds a Master of Public Affairs and Master of Arts in Latin American Studies from the University of Texas at Austin. Latin America and the Caribbean: Illicit Drug Trafficking and U.S. Counterdrug Programs Congressional Research Service May 12, 2011 http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R41215.pdf

Drug trafficking is viewed as a primary threat to citizen security and U.S. interests in Latin America and the Caribbean despite decades of anti-drug efforts by the United States and partner governments. The production and trafficking of popular illicit drugscocaine, marijuana, opiates, and methamphetaminegenerate a multi-billion dollar black market in which Latin American criminal and terrorist organizations thrive. These groups challenge state authority in source and transit countries where governments are often fragile and easily corrupted.
Mexican drug trafficking organizations (DTOs) largely control the U.S. illicit drug market and have been identified by the U.S. Department of Justice as the greatest organized crime threat to the United States. Drug trafficking-related crime and violence in the region has

escalated in recent years, raising the drug issue to the forefront of U.S. foreign policy concerns.

Solvency

Cuba Says Yes

Cuba says yes new force-feeding procedures
Times 13 (The, Guantanamo Bay inmates force-fed 'illegally', The Australian, May 03, 2013 12:00AM,
Online, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/guantanamo-bay-inmates-force-fed-illegally/storyfnb64oi6-1226634217248, accessed 7/27/13) PE

The Pentagon admits that 100 inmates are now on hunger strike, with 23 being fed through nasal tubes. Lawyers say some of them have lost up to 18kg since the protest
began in February. The Pentagon sent 40 nurses and other specialists to Guantanamo this week to help with the care of the hunger strikers as conditions at the camp have come under renewed scrutiny. One prisoner, who spoke by telephone to his lawyer, said he was restrained by officers in riot gear and tied hand and foot before having a drip forcibly inserted in his hand. Cuba waded into the

controversy yesterday, demanding that Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Havana's control. Rupert Coville, a spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, said yesterday: "If it's perceived as torture or inhuman treatment and it's the case it's painful, then it is prohibited by international law." The UN bases its stance on the
World Medical Association watchdog, which declared in 1991 that forcible feeding was "never ethically acceptable". Artificial feeding can be used only where the prisoner agrees, or if the detainee is ruled unable to make a competent decision and gave no advance instructions refusing the treatment. Cori Crider, the legal director of prisoner rights organisation Reprieve, said one of her clients had described being strapped into a chair in his cell and force-fed while shackled. "Either they could not cope or they are being gratuitously cruel," she said. Conditions at Guantanamo are back in the spotlight this week after US President Barack Obama made it clear he still wanted to shut the camp, which he said was expensive, unnecessary and a recruitment tool for extremists. The White House confirmed it was looking at ways to reduce the population of 166 detainees, who have been held there for up to 11 years without charge or trial. One of the sticking points is a self-imposed ban on repatriating people to Yemen, where al-Qa'ida is still active. Of the 86 inmates considered to be low risk, 56 are Yemeni. Critics of the administration say the White House has been inactive and has all but given up on trying to reduce numbers. The State Department's special envoy on Guantanamo, ambassador Daniel Fried, was moved to a new job in January and has not been replaced. Peter Jan Honigsberg, a San Francisco University law professor who runs the Witness to Guantanamo project, archiving events at the camp, said: "They shuttered the State Department office in January that would look for ways to repatriate people. They clearly gave up on that. "I spoke to ambassador Fried about the reason why it was closed - it's simple, there's no movement from the White House." On Mr Obama's new pledge, Professor Honigsberg said: "Words don't work any more for me, not after 11 years of people being held without trial."

Naval Base Mechanism

Returning the naval base opens up opportunities for growth and relations for the whole Caribbean
Barcia 7/11 (Dr Manuel Barcia, Deputy Director at the Institute for Colonial and Postcolonial Studies
at the University of Leeds. Guantanamos other historyReturning Guantanamo to Cubans may develop US-Cuba relations and create brighter opportunities for the entire Caribbean. Aljazeera. July 11, 2013. Web. http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/07/20137101135135984.html)//MK Nationalism aside, the fact remains that the occupation of Guantanamo, although technically legal, was enforced upon two weak Cuban governments who were hardly in a position to confront the might of the United States at the time. Sooner or later a new treaty free of imperialist bullying should be negotiated with the government of the Republic of Cuba. Whether that government is led by Raul Castro or by some

democratically elected successor is ultimately irrelevant. It should be down to the people of Cuba to determine the future of this now world (in)famous base. Guantanamo may provide the US and Cuba with a chance to develop and improve their diplomatic relations, and to transform its dark legend of illegalities and torture into a bright opportunity for collaboration and growth for the entire Caribbean.

Returning Guantanamo compensates Cuban people and helps relations

Chelala 13 (Dr. CESAR CHELALA, MD, PhD, is a co-winner of an Overseas Press Club of America
award, foreign correspondent for Middle East Times International (Australia). How Guantnamo Can Improve U.S. Relations with its Latin NeighborsReturn Guantnamo to the Cuban People, Counter Punch. MARCH 26, 2013. Web. http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/26/return-guantanamo-to-thecuban-people/)//MK
To restore good relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, damaged by several years of neglect, is one of many difficult tasks now facing the Obama

A measure that could have far-reaching consequences and notably improve the U.S. battered image in the continent would be to return Guantnamo to the Cuban people. Guantnamo has a convoluted history. Initially, the U.S. government obtained a 99-year lease on the 45 square mile area
administration. beginning in 1903. The resulting Cuban-American Treaty established, among other things, that for the purposes of operating naval and coaling stations in Guantnamo, the U.S. had complete jurisdiction and control of the area. However, it was also recognized that the Republic o f Cuba retained ultimate sovereignty. In 1934, a new treaty reaffirmed most of the lease conditions, increased the lease payment to the equivalent of $3,085 in U.S. dollars per year, and made the lease permanent unless both governments agreed to end it or the U.S. decided to abandon the area. In the confusion of the early days of the Cuban revolution, Castros government cashed the first check but left the remaining checks un-cashed. Since these checks were made out to the Treasurer General of the Republic, a position that ceased to exist after the revolution, they are technically invalid. The U.S. has maintained that the cashing of the first check indicates acceptance of the lease

the lease conditions were imposed on Cuba under duress and are rendered void under modern international law. The U.S. has used the argument of Cuban sovereignty over Guantnamo when denying basic guarantees of the U.S. Constitution to the detainees at that facility by indicating that federal jurisdiction doesnt apply to them. If the Cuban government indeed has sovereignty over Guantnamo, then its claims over the area are legally
conditions. However, at the time of the new treaty, the U.S. sent a fleet of warships to Cuba to strengthen its position. Thus, a counter argument is that

binding and the U.S. is obligated to return Guantnamo to Cuba. Since 1959, the Cuban government has informed the U.S. government that it wants to terminate the lease on Guantnamo.
The U.S. has consistently refused this request on the grounds that it requires agreement by both parties. Alfred-Maurice de Zayas, an American lawyer and professor of international law at the Geneva School of Diplomacy and International Relations, has noted that article 52 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties states, A treaty is void if its conclusion has been procured by the threat or use of force in violation of the principles of international law embodied in the Charter of the United Nations. He also believes that the conditions under which the treaty was imposed o n the Cuban National Assembly, particularly as a pre-condition to limited Cuban independence, left Cuba no other choice than to yield to pressure. A treaty can also be void by virtue of material breach of its provisions, as indicated in article 60 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to the original terms of the lease agreement, the Guantnamo Bay territory could only be used for

the use of the Guantnamo facility as an internment camp for Haitian and Cuban refugees or, even more ominously, as a demonstrated torture center by the U.S. military indicates a significant breach of that agreement, fully justifying its immediate termination. President Jimmy Carter courageously returned the Panama Canal to the Panamanians, thus setting an important precedent in international
coaling and naval purposes. However, relations. President Carter did what was legally right, and lifted U.S. prestige not only among Panamanians but throughout the hemisphere. It can be said that the

returning Guantnamo to Cuba is hopelessly nave, since it would give an unnecessary boost to the Castro brothers. However, this would be balanced by a wave of goodwill and respect towards the U.S. throughout Latin America. In addition, returning Guantnamo to Cuba will allow the U.S. to close one of the most tragic chapters of its legal and moral history, and it will compensate Cubans for the miseries they have had to endure due to the U.S. embargo and the stubbornness of the Cuban leaders.
proposal of

Returning Guantanamo to Cuba is feasible and the best way to solve relations
Sweig et al 9 ( Julia E. Sweig, Nelson and David Rockefeller Senior Fellow for Latin America Studies
and Director for Latin America Studies. Don't Just Close Gitmo. Give It Back. May 3, 2009. Washington Post. Web. http://www.cfr.org/cuba/dont-just-close-gitmo-give-back/p19289)//MK President Obama has promised to shut down the detention camp at Guantanamo

Bay, seeking to erase a blot on America's global image. He has also reached out to Cuba, easing some travel and financial restrictions in an effort to recast
Washington's approach to the island. These two initiatives have proceeded on separate tracks so far, but now is the time to bring them together. Hiding in plain sight, the U.S. naval base at

Guantanamo Bay is the ideal place for Obama to launch a far-reaching transformation of Washington's relationship with its communist neighbor. How? By preparing to give Guantanamo back to Cuba. It's not as impossible as it sounds. The United States has scaled back, modified or even withdrawn its military presence elsewhere; think Okinawa, South Korea, Subic Bay in the Philippines or
Vieques in Puerto Rico. Whatever Guantanamo's minor strategic value to the United States for processing refugees or as a counter-narcotics outpost, the costs of staying permanently -- with the

stain of the prisons, the base's imperial legacy and the animosity of the host government -- outweigh the benefits. The time to begin this transition is now. By transforming Guantanamo as part of a broader remaking of Washington's relationship with Cuba, the Obama administration can begin fixing what the president himself has decried as a "failed" policy. It can upend a U.S.-Cuba

stalemate that has barely budged for 50 years and can put to the test Raul Castro's stated willingness to entertain meaningful changes.

WERE TOPICAL!!!
Vinke 9 (Kira VinkeVisiting Research Scholar at TERI University, intern at German Embassy
Tokyo, research Assistant at Council on Hemispheric Affairs. REVAMPING U.S.-CUBAN POLITICS: PLAYING THE GUANTNAMO CARD IN A GAME OF CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY. COHA. March 4, 2009. Web. http://www.coha.org/revamping-us-cuban-politics-playing-the-guantanamo-card-ina-game-of-constructive-diplomacy/)//MK This makes perfectly clear that effectively reestablishing Washingtons reputation for probity abroad will not end with the closing of the internment camp in Guantnamo. If Obama is serious about undoing U.S. policy in the course of its war on terror, and if he wants to again make this country into a law abiding society, he will have to ensure fair trials for all suspects formerly detained by the U.S. at Guantnamo Bay and then return the military base to Cuba, marking a clear break with its dark history. Such a reconstruction of relations would be beneficial for both partners, economically , politically and socially, especially due

to the close geographic proximity of the two nations. The Legal Perspective: A Void
Treaty. It can be argued that from an objective perspective, the U.S. occupation of Guantnamo is illegal and the 1903 treaty is invalid. International law professor and former U.N. lawyer, Alfred de Zayas, maintains that the lease agreement is voidable. As evidence he cites five international legal findings; the Doctrine of Unequal Treaties, the Emergence of New Peremptory Norms, the Implied Right of Denunciation, the Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus and the Termination by Virtue of Material Breach. The Doctrine of Unequal Treaties describes the voiding of treaties that had been entered into between unequal parties. Former Soviet judge Sergei Krylov articulated in 1947, at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, that treaties by which an imperialist power imposes its will upon a weaker state are invalid. Under this condition, treaties between imperialist superpowers and colonies were revoked in the process of decolonization. In reference to Guantnamo, it can be

maintained that Cuba was not a fully sovereign state in 1903 when the treaty to lease one of the islands finest natural harbors to the U.S. was made. Havana had emerged from 400
years of Spanish control in 1898, and taking the Platt Amendment into account, Cuba was in effect still under U.S. military occupation when it declared its nominal independence on May 20, 1902. During this period, Havana came under great pressure from Washington to sign the agreement guaranteeing effective U.S. sovereignty over the island. Furthermore, the Emergence of New Peremptory Norms is mentioned by Zayas. It relates to the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and can be applied to the Guantnamo case. Article 64 of that document states that if there is a new norm in international law, it retrospectively applies to all treaties. Consequently, if treaties do not comply with the new norm, they must be rendered invalid. The principle of self-determination, and by extension of this a nation-states full sovereignty over its soil, has been a peremptory norm of international law for many years now. Since the treaty between the U.S. and Cuba clearly violates this norm, it deserves to be annulled. In addition to these provisions of a number of international laws, Zayas points out that article 31 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties argues that a treaty should be interpreted according to the context and the circumstances under which it was made. He makes the case that Cuba intentionally did not sell the land to the U.S. in the early 1900s, but retained sovereignty over the leased territory. Therefore, a sovereign should be able to regain the exercise of jurisdiction over the territory in question, otherwise he

is not a true sovereign, Zayas contends. Zayas also invokes the Clausula Rebus Sic Stantibus, which provides legal ground for a treaty to become invalid if there is a fundamental change in circumstances. A

change in regime in Havana from a former ally to a foe, to which the U.S. has maintained a half-century embargo aimed at asphyxiating its economy, represents an essential alteration of an objective situation. He concludes that it is an anomaly that the country that has imposed an embargo on Cuba for more than 40 years insists that it has a right to remain on its sovereign territory, and
Washingtons operation as a sovereign even though it all along has acknowledged that the harbor belongs to Cuba is also a contradiction. Lastly, Zayas brings up what may be the most obvious reason for the invalidating of the 1903 agreement: the breach of contract by the U.S. The treaty states that the

territory is to be used for coaling or naval stations only, and for no other purpose. The use of the land for establishing an internment camp and interrogation center is wholly incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty. Furthermore, it was stipulated that the territory could not be used for commercial
purposes. However, there are currently nine restaurants, seven bars, a bowling alley, a surfboard rental and several other businesses on the base. The five legal standards listed above fully apply to the situation in Guantnamo and show that under international law, the 1903 treaty is invalid. David vs. Goliath. Aside from the indisputable legal situation, it would be economically beneficial for the U.S. to abolish the base, and its relations with the region as a whole would undoubtedly benefit from such a move. The results of similar historical actions, like the reversion of the Panama Canal to Panama, and the Suez Canal to Egypt,

demonstrate the diplomatic advantages of returning Guantnamo to Cuba, due to the goodwill it would engender. The U.S. approach to Cuba has been perhaps the single biggest factor in the emergence of a tumultuous relationship between Washington and the rest of Latin America, and steps towards a thaw in its ties with Havana would surely strengthen the U.S. image elsewhere, which is considered to be a major desideration involved in its attempts to reconstruct its Latin American policy. Therefore, once the detention camp is closed, the territory itself should be returned to Cuba, as there is no reason to maintain the existing naval station. Fidel Castro called it an arrogant act and an abuse of immense power against a little country, for the U.S. not to return the base. Venezuelan
President Hugo Chvez demanded on January 29 at the World Social Forum in Brazil that President Obama should return Guantnamo and Guantnamo Bay to the Cubans because that is Cuban territory. Demonstrably, it is up to the U.S. to comply with the law of nations and standards of international law. As of now, Havana, the weaker nation by far, can merely repeatedly demand the reversion of its land back to Cuba. At this point, Washington can start by fulfilling some of the fundamental duties of a state: namely, to abide by the application of the principles of international law to this dispute, while

committing an act of comity and goodwill by returning Guantnamo to its rightful owner, Cuba.

Returning Guantanamo to Cuba would strengthen relationships with Cuba and Latin America
Vinke 9 (Kira VinkeVisiting Research Scholar at TERI University, intern at German Embassy
Tokyo, research Assistant at Council on Hemispheric Affairs. REVAMPING U.S.-CUBAN POLITICS: PLAYING THE GUANTNAMO CARD IN A GAME OF CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY. COHA. March 4, 2009. Web. http://www.coha.org/revamping-us-cuban-politics-playing-the-guantanamo-card-ina-game-of-constructive-diplomacy/)//MK

Returning Guantnamo to effective Cuban sovereignty as part of a normalization of relations with Cuba would have an explosive impact throughout Latin America. It would be the single most transformative act of goodwill that the U.S. could make, and would be sure to bring in return a range of positive actions on Havanas part. Furthermore, Washingtons release of the
Cuban Five (jailed Cubans presently serving lengthy prison terms after very controversial trials before Federal District Judge Joan Lenard one of the most contentious judicial figures in the country) could win the release of all political prisoners presently being held in Cuba. Guantnamo: an Anachronism The presence of the U.S. in Cuba is a grossly outdated quirk of history. Today there appears to be no

logical justification for the U.S. maintenance of its more than 100-year old outmoded base at Guantnamo; the U.S. receives no tactical or economic benefits from it. Indeed, The New York Times estimated that the annual cost to operate the
strategically redundant base ranges between $90 million and $118 million, an unconscionable waste of vital resources, particularly in these dire economic times. To continue leasing territory from

a country with which the U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations for almost five decades and which has become its mortal enemy, also seems to be a bizarre practice at the least and at best a perversity. There is no legal justification for Washingtons continued presence at Guantnamo; the base contravenes a myriad of
international laws. Moreover, the original military rationale for sustaining a base on Cuba no longer exists. Washington has closed similar bases in the region, including Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico, and the naval imperatives of the late 19th century have long since disappeared. Roosevelt Roads was shut down due to the Pentagons base-closing proceedings. There is no question that

Guantnamo would be in for the same fate if it werent used as an instrument of spite against the Castro regime, rather than serving a useful function. In short, the U.S. maintenance of Guantnamo is an anachronism, which it would do no harm to resolve, rather decidedly bringing distinct political benefits.

Closing GITMO insufficientnaval base must be returned to Cuba Rueckert 6/4 (Phineas Rueckert, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs.
GUANTNAMO BAY: CLOSING THE GTMO DETENTION CENTER IS A WILTING OLIVE BRANCH TO CUBA AND THE REST OF LATIN AMERICA. COHA Research. June 4, 2013. Web. http://www.coha.org/guantanamo-bay-closing-the-gtmo-detention-center-is-a-wilting-olive-branch-tocuba-and-the-rest-of-latin-america/)//MK

For many people in the United States, including President Obama, closing Guantnamo Bay means shutting down the detention center but leaving the naval base open. However, closing only the

detention center would do little to improve the relationship between Cuba and the United States. Timothy Ashby, a Senior Research Fellow at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs and a former senior official at the U.S. Department of Commerce has observed: I do not think closure of the GTMO center would have any impact on bilateral relations with Cuba. If the entire base were shut down and handed back to Cuba, I think the Cuban government would react favorably and see it as a goodwill gesture. But that will not happen even though the actual base is an
unnecessary expense and serves no more of a strategic purpose than the detention center. For Obama, closing the Guantnamo Bay detention center has more to do with improving the image of the United States in the world than it does with improving U.S. relations with Cuba or other Latin American countries and the Caribbean. As Obama decried in his May 23 speech, the Guantnamo

Bay detention center is an unnecessary moral and financial burden on the United States. But the naval base itself, which Obama has never suggested closing, still serves a strategic
purpose of projecting U.S. military power in the Western Hemisphere. Washingtons cursory discourse concerning Guantnamo Baywhich neglects to consider reverting the naval base to Cuba as an option suggests that its imperialist inclinations have not fully abated. Broadly speaking, the continued presence of U.S. troops at Guantnamoregardless of whether or not those troops are there to detain terroristsshows that Washington is not ready to step down from its traditional strategic/militaristic position in Latin America or improve relations with Cuba. Bolender argued that: Guantnamo is a symbol of the imperialistic past [of the United States] towards Latin America, and in particular Cuba. The detention center should be shut down, those not charged freed immediately, and the rest, if any are truly guilty, sent to the United States. The bigger situation is that the base itself, forced upon Cuba more than 100 years ago, should be returned to Cuba. [U.S. citizens] have no right to be there, except under a one-sided treaty that the Cuban government has long condemned. That would certainly improve relations between the two countries, but the Americans have made it clear they have no intention of returning what rightfully belongs to Cuba.

Closing Gitmo sends signal that the US approves of Cuban government changes Miranda 11 (Olga Miranda, Doctor of Legal Sciences. How to End the Guantnamo Treaty, essay. Published 2011 in Guantnamo, book. http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/static/pdfs/guantanamo.pdf) //MK
Let us recall that the treaty leaves the termination of the lease to the will of the United States: for the time required. Now, thanks to Section 201 (12) of Chapter II of the HelmsBurton law, the government of the United States is required to be ready to begin negotiations with a Cuban government of which they approved, that is, that fitted their democratic pattern. The requirement in the treaty that the base be held only while it is useful has been made irrelevant since March 1996, when the Helms-Burton law was implemented. The duration of the base will now depend on whether Cuba has a government that Washington approves of. Therefore, because of the Helms-Burton law

an imperial instrument that prevails over the so-called treaty, created with a unilateral decision taken by one of the two partiesalthough the base may become an annoyance (as, in fact, it is), and although US taxpayers must continue to pay for the mess created by the HelmsBurton law in general and particularly to keep the naval base at Guantnamo, the hands of the US government will be tied to the implementation of the existing treaty. The HelmsBurton law ruling is further proof that the continued existence of the naval base in Guantnamo is imposed on Cuba by the United States with no legal backing whatsoever and without consideration for the will of the Cuban people. From the beginning, the naval base was a unilateral creation of the United States, and the latest act confirms this once again.

Cuban government willing to work with the US to resolve Guantanamo issues Miranda 11 (Olga Miranda, Doctor of Legal Sciences. How to End the
Guantnamo Treaty, essay. Published 2011 in Guantnamo, book. http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/static/pdfs/guantanamo.pdf) //MK

The conference considered that the

maintenance by the United States of the naval base at Guantnamo, against the will of the Cuban government and peopleand despite the provisos in the declaration of the 1961 Belgrade conferenceis a violation of Cubas sovereignty and territorial integrity. The Cairo conference 92 Guntanamo also noted that the Cuban government had stated its willingness to resolve its dispute with the US government regarding the military base at Guantnamo on an equal footing. Therefore, the Cairo conference requested that the US government hold negotiations with the
government of Cuba to withdraw from that military facility.

Guantanamo bay opposed by most citizens-not just Cuban government Miranda 11 (Olga Miranda, Doctor of Legal Sciences. How to End the Guantnamo Treaty, essay.
Published 2011 in Guantnamo, book. http://www.oceanbooks.com.au/static/pdfs/guantanamo.pdf) //MK

Another possibility for terminating the lease of the Guantnamo base is expressed in the 1934 treaty, where in the beginning of Article III reads Until the two contracting parties agree to the modification of the [February 1903] agreement. The idea expressed in this sentence does not really imply the termination of the occupation of the

territoryit indicates more the US desire to maintain the possibility of implementing later a new, more modern form of agreement, like the treaties they
have signed since 1940 to legitimize their military bases in foreign territories. The idea of abandoning the base, that is to say, the unilateral action mentioned in the 1903 agreements and ratified in the 1934 treaty, is the one that survives in the sentence, as long as the United States of America shall not abandon the naval base at Guantnamo. For that reason, it would be worthwhile to explain here that when the 1934 treaty is mentioned, the treatment of the base in the 1903 agreement is implicit. Thus, it would not be absurd to speak about the 1903/1934 treaty or agreement. The 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties establishes that a state may not contend a cause to annul or terminate a treaty if, after knowing about a violation, it has expressly communicated

that: The treaty is valid, or; It is still in effect, or; Its application continues, or; It has been verified in such a way that it must be deemed to have acquiesced to the validity of the treaty or to its continued enforcement or application, according to the case in question. I ask myself if the United States

could at some point claim the continuity of the application of the treaty on the base due to the simple fact that its troops remain in it, notwithstanding the coercion and threats and violations of the treaty by the US side. I also ask myself whether that undesired permanence could signify Cubas acquiescence and, consequently, a sort of validation that negates the demand that the treaty be annulled due to the element of duress in the agreement. However, it is publicly and well known that the Cuban people never consented to the US presence imposed upon them, moreover the agreement was a violation of the Cuban constitution that was rejected by a popular referendum which also declared the agreement unlawful and invalid.

Transferring the naval base gives Guantanamo back to Cuba that spills over to international perception Hansen 12 (Jonathan M. Hansen, lecturer in social studies at Harvard, author of Guantnamo: An
American History. Give Guantnamo Back to Cuba, NY Times article. January 10, 2012. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=0)//MK How did this look from Cubas perspective? Well, imagine that at the end of the American

Revolution the French had decided to remain here. Imagine that the French had refused to allow Washington and his army to attend the armistice at Yorktown. Imagine that they had denied the Continental Congress a seat at the Treaty of Paris, prohibited expropriation of Tory property, occupied New York Harbor, dispatched troops to quash Shays and other rebellions and then immigrated to the colonies in droves, snatching up the most valuable land. Such is the context in which the United States came to occupy Guantnamo. It is a history excluded from American textbooks and neglected in the debates over terrorism, international law and the reach of executive power. But it is a history known in Cuba (where it motivated the 1959 revolution) and throughout Latin America. It explains why Guantnamo remains a glaring symbol of hypocrisy around the world. We need not even speak of the last decade. If President Obama were to acknowledge this history and initiate the process of returning Guantnamo to Cuba, he could begin to put the mistakes of the last 10 years behind us, not to mention fulfill a campaign pledge. (Given Congressional intransigence, there might be no better way to close the detention camp than to turn over the rest of the naval base along with it.) It would rectify an age-old grievance and lay the groundwork for new relations with Cuba and other countries in the Western Hemisphere and around the globe. Finally, it would send an unmistakable message that integrity, self-scrutiny and candor are not evidence of weakness, but indispensable attributes of leadership in an ever

there would be no fitter way to observe todays grim anniversary than to stand up for the principles Guantnamo has undermined for over a century.
changing world. Surely

Returning the Bay is an important step towards relations and human rights Cavendish 5/30 (David Cavendish, writer for Peoples World. Let's give

Guantanamo Bay back to Cuba, Peoples World. May 30th, 2013. Web. http://www.peoplesworld.org/let-s-give-guantanamo-bay-back-to-cuba/)//MK Guantanamo will only be closed if there continues to be a broad-based movement that consistently pressures the government to close the prison. This effort is being augmented by the struggle - most notably through their hunger strike - by the detainees to seek justice. When the detention center is closed it will be a most important step in the worldwide effort to achieve universal human rights. But this closure should be only a first step in a longterm strategy. What must be done is for the United States to return Guantanamo Bay, with all of its military facilities dismantled, to Cuba, the country from which U.S. imperialists stole it in 1898. There is no reason for the U.S. to maintain control over territory that belongs to another sovereign nation. Our presence in Guantanamo Bay harks back to the days of "gunboat diplomacy" and running roughshod over the darker-skinned peoples of Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Hypocritical Guantanamo Bay should be returned

Sabrin 13 (Murray Sabrin, Professor of Finance in the Anisfield School of Business at Ramapo College of New Jersey, Ph.D. in economic geography from Rutgers University, an M.A. in social studies education from Lehman College and a B.A. in history, geography and social studies education from Hunter College. Economic Policy Journal, Murray Sabrin Return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba. February 4th, 2013. Web. http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/02/murray-sabrin-returnguantanamo-bay-to.html)//MK
The stumbling blocks to ending the American embargo are obvious: the political clout of the CubanAmerican community who fled the island before and after Castro nationalized the countrys resources; returning the confiscated property to their owners or heirs would be a goodwill gesture by the Cuban government. The U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay. Having a foreign power occupy a portion of a countrys nations territory is a violation of national sovereignty.

Guantanamo Bay should be returned to Cuba. Would the American people tolerate Mexico, Canada or any other nation occupying a portion Hawaii, Alaska or any land in our southwest, northwest, and northeast regions of America? To ask the question is to answer it.

Obama on board-just need congress

Global Post 13 (Global Post News Website. Cuba says US must shut Guantanamo, hand back base,
AFP. May 1st, 2013. Web. http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/afp/130501/cuba-says-us-must-shutguantanamo-hand-back-base)//MK "That prison and military base should be shut down and that territory should be returned to Cuba," he said. Parrilla also slammed the force-feeding of more

than a dozen hunger strikers who, like the bulk of the detainees in the "war on terror" lock-up, have been refusing food for weeks. Earlier Wednesday, the UN's human rights office had said that feeding hunger strikers against their will was a breach of international law. The hunger strike, now into its 12th week, has heightened the pressure on Washington to shut what Obama has called a legal "no man's land". Obama said Tuesday he did not want any inmates to die and urged Congress to help him find a long-term solution that would allow for prosecuting terror suspects while shutting down Guantanamo.

T Answers

2ac T Increase Economic Engagement

We Meet Technical cooperation is economic engagement
CDKN No Date (Climate & Development Knowledge Network, Brazils economic engagement with
Africa, http://cdkn.org/resource/brazils-economic-engagement-with-africa/, No Date)

Africa offers Brazil an opportunity to expand its bilateral technical cooperation and to revolutionise renewable energy production in particular biofuels, where it has assumed a global leadership. Given Brazils technical expertise in a range of areas relevant to Africas development needs (e.g. agricultural research, social protection, anti-retroviral treatment), it can play an important role in contributing to the continents socioeconomic development. This paper explores both the current nature and possible future orientations of Brazils
economic, commercial and financial relationships with the African countries. The focus of the paper is to assess the volume and trend of trade commodities between Brazil and African countries; to determine the nature of Brazilian investments in Africa; and to scope the benefits of Brazils technical cooperation.

Brazils economic engagement with Africa.

We Meet Engagement on physical infrastructure is economic

UN Business Guidelines 13 (United Nations Organization devoted to studying, regulating, and
advising the business communities of the world on how to be global citizens, How can companies make a profit, responsibly, while assisting low income communities/countries? UN Business Guidelines, accessed July 22, http://business.un.org/en/documents/196) Financial gifts alone do not bring people out of poverty. They need the kind of enabling environment that will help develop their economy: employment, educational opportunity, medical support, legal framework, access to credit, rural development, supportive physical infrastructure, telecommunications connectivity and more. Businesses have a unique role to play. Responsibly undertaken, their impact can be profound if they align core competencies with relevant needs: education, health, law, microcredit, banking, agriculture, engineering, telecommunications and so on. This could be on a philanthropic basis or on a business engagement level. There are different models of engagement: You may sell your products or services, packaged and priced appropriately, within low income communities. You may train local partners in these communities to develop appropriate skills or expertise so that they become distributors/partners themselves. This increases employment, provides income and improves their communities, while increasing market share for your company. You may partner to expand local utilities and services in low income communities. For example, information technology, health care, banking, water and sanitation, crop development, business and management expertise, etc. You may partner with other businesses or Government to

strengthen physical infrastructure and economic environments to help foster national growth. For example, extractive industries, satellite support, engineering projects, etc.

Counter-Interpretation Increase requires a net increase

Words and Phrases 8 (20B W&P 265-265) Cal.App.2 Dist. 1991. Term increase, as used in statute giving the Energy Commission modification jurisdiction over any alteration, replacement, or improvement of equipment that results in increase of 50 megawatts or more in electric generating capacity of existing thermal power plant, refers to net increase in power plants total generating capacity; in deciding whether there has been the requisite 50-megawatt increase as a result of new units being incorporated into a plant, Energy Commission cannot ignore decreases in capacity caused by retirement or deactivation of other units at plant. Wests Ann.Cal.Pub.Res.Code 25123.

Economic engagement is aid, trade, access to technology, lifting sanctions, and entry into economic institutions
Haass and OSullivan, 2k - *Vice President and Director of Foreign Policy Studies at the Brookings Institution AND **a Fellow with the Foreign Policy Studies Program at the Brookings Institution (Richard and Meghan, Terms of Engagement: Alternatives to Punitive Policies Survival,, vol. 42, no. 2, Summer 2000, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/articles/2000/6/summer%20haass/2000survival.pdf

Architects of engagement strategies can choose from a wide variety of incentives. Economic engagement might offer tangible incentives such as export credits, investment insurance or promotion, access to technology , loans and economic aid.3 Other equally useful economic incentives involve the removal of penalties such as trade embargoes, investment bans or high tariffs, which have impeded economic relations between the United States and the target country. Facilitated entry into the economic global arena and the institutions that govern it rank among the most potent incentives in todays global market. Similarly, political engagement can
involve the lure of diplomatic recognition, access to regional or international institutions, the scheduling of summits between leaders or the termination of these benefits. Military engagement could involve the extension of international military educational training in order both to strengthen respect for civilian authority and human rights among a countrys armed forces and, more feasibly, to establish relationships between Americans and young foreign military officers. While these areas of engagement are likely to involve working with state institutions, cultural or civil-society engagement entails building people-topeople contacts. Funding nongovernmental organisations, facilitating the flow of remittances and promoting the exchange of students, tourists and other non-governmental people between countries are just some of the possible incentives used in the form of engagement.

We Meet our counter interpretation because we increase access to the physical technology located within the geography of Cuba.

Prefer our interpretation: A) Aff Ground we allow creativity with that has a limit to what the affirmative is allowed to do. Aff creativity is key on this topic because there are only 3 countries and functional limits check most affs. B) The form of engagement is key non-economic motives will always exist.
Singh 1 Swaran Singh, Research Fellow at the Institute for Defence Studies & Analyses, ChinaIndia: Expanding Economic Engagement, 1-3, http://www.idsa-india.org/an-jan-3-01html.html

The problem with this border trade post involves the ticklish issue of India's province of Sikkim that the Chinese continue to regard as an independent state. While the Indian side has been suggesting the route originating in
A fourth route, in the eastern sector has been agreed-in-principle since the last few years but there remain some basic complications. Sikkim, the Chinese have been deliberating on this issue as it implies a formal recognition of Sikkim's accession to India. China, therefore, has suggested an alternate route from Kalimpong in the Darjeeling district of India's province of West Bengal (passing through Sikkim) to Yatung in Chumbi Valley region. The Chinese have also been indicating that such an agreement on this border trade post may include language implying China's official recognition of Sikkim as part of the Indian Union. New Delhi, however, would like China to recognise Sikkim as part of India as a pre-requisite to any such agreement. This is often explained in terms of India's earlier experiences with such trade pacts. For example, in another trade agreement of April 1954, Prime Minister Nehru had traded off entire Tibet for nothing. To break from this intractable deadlock in their eastern sector, the two sides have since expanded their framework and have been exploring possibilities of opening their border trade as part of sub-regional cooperation amongst India's northeast, China's southwest, Bangladesh and Myanmar. The first formal conference for this purpose was convened in August 1999 at Kunming in China's province of Yunnan and it passed a resolution which is known now as the Kunming Initiative. India is preparing

All this clearly shows how despite continuous improvement in their mutual trade and commerce, their economic decisions still continue to be guided by their non-economic
to host the second such conference for sub-regional cooperation amongst these four countries during the first week of December 2000 at Delhi.

motives .

C) They over-limit Reasonability: Good is good enough, there is only a marginal impact to any difference between competing interpretations. They create a race to the bottom, which will always exclude us absent reasonability

EE
Engagement on physical infrastructure is economic
UN Business Guidelines 13 (United Nations Organization devoted to studying, regulating, and
advising the business communities of the world on how to be global citizens, How can companies make a profit, responsibly, while assisting low income communities/countries? UN Business Guidelines, accessed July 22, http://business.un.org/en/documents/196) Financial gifts alone do not bring people out of poverty. They need the kind of enabling environment that will help develop their economy: employment, educational opportunity, medical support, legal framework, access to credit, rural development, supportive physical infrastructure, telecommunications connectivity and more. Businesses have a unique role to play. Responsibly undertaken, their impact can be profound if they align core competencies with relevant needs: education, health, law, microcredit, banking, agriculture, engineering, telecommunications and so on. This could be on a philanthropic basis or on a business engagement level. There are different models of engagement: You may sell your products or services, packaged and priced appropriately, within low income communities. You may train local partners in these communities to develop appropriate skills or expertise so that they become distributors/partners themselves. This increases employment, provides income and improves their communities, while increasing market share for your company. You may partner to expand local utilities and services in low income communities. For example, information technology, health care, banking, water and sanitation, crop development, business and management expertise, etc. You may partner with other businesses or Government to

strengthen physical infrastructure and economic environments to help foster national growth. For example, extractive industries, satellite support, engineering projects, etc.

Technical Cooperation = T
Technical cooperation
CDKN No Date (Climate & Development Knowledge Network, Brazils economic engagement with
Africa, http://cdkn.org/resource/brazils-economic-engagement-with-africa/, No Date)

Africa offers Brazil an opportunity to expand its bilateral technical cooperation and to revolutionise renewable energy production in particular biofuels, where it has assumed a global leadership. Given Brazils technical expertise in a range of areas relevant to Africas development needs (e.g. agricultural research, social protection, anti-retroviral treatment), it can play an important role in contributing to the continents socioeconomic development. This paper explores both the current nature and possible future orientations of Brazils
economic, commercial and financial relationships with the African countries. The focus of the paper is to assess the volume and trend of trade commodities between Brazil and African countries; to determine the nature of Brazilian investments in Africa; and to scope the benefits of Brazils technical cooperation.

Brazils economic engagement with Africa.

Technical cooperation is economic engagement

Ben Barka, 5/11/2011 (Habiba, Senior Planning Economist (SAEC), The African Development Bank
Group Chief Economist Complex Africa Economic Brief vol. 2.6 http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Publications/India's%20Economic%20Engagem ent%20with%20Africa.pdf) Within the context of its Aid for Africa program, India

offers technical cooperation to many African countries through the Indian Technical and Economic Cooperation (ITEC)
and other related programs. ITEC allocates aid based on the importance (economic and/or strategic) of the recipient country for India; it also provides funding for the training of African personnel in India, for projects, technical assistance, study trips, and humanitarian assistance. India established the Special Commonwealth Assistance for Africa Program (SCAAP), which operates under similar modalities to ITEC but its coverage is restricted to those African countries belonging to the Commonwealth (i.e. 19 countries). In 2009-2010, India provided assistance worth US$ 16.8 million under ITEC, US$ 1.8 million under SCAAP, and US$ 24.6 million as direct aid to African countries.5)

Technical cooperation is an example of economic engagement

Africa News, 10/3/2008 (Namibia; Nigeria Urges Greater Economic Ties Lexis)
Foreign diplomats and invited local dignitaries attended the function at which the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Marcus Hausiku, spoke on behalf of the Namibian Government. "It is important that existing economic platforms be resuscitated to further facilitate and deepen economic engagements in our bilateral relations with regard to health, education, scientific and technical cooperation , fishing, air services, merchant shipping, tourism, investment, banking, finance as well as petroleum related matters," the High Commissioner said. The

two countries need to

help each other to develop baskets of meaningful activities to be turned into concrete economic projects.

Technical engagement over human rights is economic engagemetn

Callick, 2/18/2008 (Rowan, Despite China's progress, Australia must continue to give the nation aid
The Australian Lexis)

The Human Rights Technical Cooperation program pursues issues discussed at the annual dialogue between the countries on human rights, with a strong recent emphasis on due legal processes. The Australia China Environment Development
Program addresses ways to implement well-intentioned policy on the environment, including water resource management and adaptation to climate change. And the China Australia Governance Program comprises a high-level engagement on economic reform and management,

legal and social security reform and human rights.

Dip Cap Answers

Link Turns
Transferring the naval base gives Guantanamo back to Cuba that spills over to international perception
Hansen 12 (Jonathan M. Hansen, lecturer in social studies at Harvard, author of Guantnamo: An
American History. Give Guantnamo Back to Cuba, NY Times article. January 10, 2012. Web. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/opinion/give-guantanamo-back-to-cuba.html?_r=0)//MK How did this look from Cubas perspective? Well, imagine that at the end of the American

Revolution the French had decided to remain here. Imagine that the French had refused to allow Washington and his army to attend the armistice at Yorktown .
Imagine that they had denied the Continental Congress a seat at the Treaty of Paris, prohibited expropriation of Tory property, occupied New York Harbor, dispatched troops to

quash

Shays and other rebellions and then immigrated to the colonies in droves, snatching up the most valuable land. Such is the context in which the United States came to occupy Guantnamo. It is a history excluded from American textbooks and neglected in the debates over terrorism, international law and the reach of executive power. But it is a history known in Cuba (where it motivated the 1959 revolution) and throughout Latin America. It explains why Guantnamo remains a glaring symbol of hypocrisy around the world. We need not even speak of the last decade. If President Obama were to acknowledge this history and initiate the process of returning Guantnamo to Cuba, he could begin to put the mistakes of the last 10 years behind us, not to mention fulfill a campaign pledge. (Given Congressional intransigence, there might be no better way to close the detention camp than to turn over the rest of the naval base along with it.) It would rectify an age-old
grievance and lay the groundwork for new relations with Cuba and other countries in the Western Hemisphere and around the globe. Finally, it would send an unmistakable message that

integrity, self-scrutiny and candor are not evidence of weakness, but indispensable attributes of leadership in an ever changing world. Surely there would be no fitter way to observe todays grim anniversary than to stand up for the principles Guantnamo has undermined for over a century.
Returning Guantanamo to Cuba solves US-Cuban and US-Latin American relationsincreases DipCap Vinke 9 (Kira VinkeVisiting Research Scholar at TERI University, intern at German Embassy
Tokyo, research Assistant at Council on Hemispheric Affairs. REVAMPING U.S.-CUBAN POLITICS: PLAYING THE GUANTNAMO CARD IN A GAME OF CONSTRUCTIVE DIPLOMACY. COHA. March 4, 2009. Web. http://www.coha.org/revamping-us-cuban-politics-playing-the-guantanamo-card-ina-game-of-constructive-diplomacy/)//MK

Returning Guantnamo to effective Cuban sovereignty as part of a normalization of relations with Cuba would have an explosive impact

throughout Latin America. It would be the single most transformative act of goodwill that the U.S. could make, and would be sure to bring in return a range of positive actions on Havanas part. Furthermore, Washingtons release of the Cuban
Five (jailed Cubans presently serving lengthy prison terms after very controversial trials before Federal District Judge Joan Lenard one of the most contentious judicial figures in the country) could win the release of all political prisoners presently being held in Cuba. Guantnamo: an Anachronism The presence of the U.S. in Cuba is a grossly outdated quirk of history. Today there

appears to be no logical justification for the U.S. maintenance of its more than 100-year old outmoded base at Guantnamo; the U.S. receives no tactical or economic benefits from it. Indeed, The New York Times
estimated that the annual cost to operate the strategically redundant base ranges between $90 million and $118

To continue leasing territory from a country with which the U.S. has not had formal diplomatic relations for almost five decades and which has become its mortal enemy, also seems to be a bizarre practice at the least and at best a perversity. There is no legal justification for Washingtons continued presence at Guantnamo; the base
million, an unconscionable waste of vital resources, particularly in these dire economic times. contravenes a myriad of international laws. Moreover, the original military rationale for sustaining a base on Cuba no longer exists. Washington has closed similar bases in the region, including Roosevelt Roads in Puerto Rico, and the naval imperatives of the late 19th century have long since disappeared. Roosevelt Roads was shut down due to the Pentagons base-closing proceedings. There

is no question that Guantnamo would be in for the same fate if it werent used as an instrument of spite against the Castro regime, rather than serving a useful function. In short, the U.S. maintenance of Guantnamo is an anachronism, which it would do no harm to resolve, rather decidedly bringing distinct political benefits.

Turnkeeping Guantanamo open costs more diplomatic capital

Waxman 7 (Matthew Waxman, Professor of Law; Faculty Chair, Roger Hertog Program on Law and
National Security. expert in national security law and international law, specializing in domestic and international legal aspects of combating terrorism and the use of military force. J.D. from Yale Law School in Political Science and International Studies, served in senior positions at the U.S. State Department, Department of Defense and National Security Council. The Smart Way to Shut Gitmo Down, Washington Post. October 28, 2007. Web. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/10/26/AR2007102601761.html)//MK Yes, Guantanamo Bay has incapacitated many al-Qaeda plotters and has given the U.S. government a better picture of the enemy. But those benefits came at a serious cost. On balance, the prison -- and

the widespread perception that it exists simply to keep detainees forever beyond the reach of the law -- has become a drag on America's moral credibility and, more to the point, its global counterterrorism efforts, too. For example, the continued controversy over Guantanamo Bay has hampered cooperation with our friends on such critical counterterrorism tasks as information sharing, joint military operations and law enforcement. I know: As a State

Department official, I often spent valuable time and diplomatic capital fruitlessly defending our detention practices rather than fostering counterterrorism teamwork. Guantanamo Bay leaves us playing defense and hinders our ability
to play effective offense.

Link Shield
Obama takes diplomatic blameKerry not affected
Schanzer 8 (David H. Schanzer, Head of the Duke-UNC Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland
Security. Duke Sanford, School of Public Policy. Published in The Philadelphia Inquirer and Raleigh News and Observer. New Administration Should Move Swiftly To Close Guantnamo. November 6, 2008. Web. http://news.sanford.duke.edu/news-type/commentary/2008/new-administration-should-moveswiftly-close-guant%C3%A1namo)//MK The second group consists of detainees who our military has determined present no danger, but have not been released because we cannot find a country that will take them. The new president will have

to expend some diplomatic capital on convincing our allies to share the burden of closing Guantnamo by taking custody of these individuals. For this
mission to succeed, however, we will need to avoid what happened earlier this month, when a State Department effort to place 17 Uighur detainees abroad was undercut by Justice Department statements that they are extremely dangerous.

Politics Answers

Winners Win
Keeping Guantanamo open makes Obama look indecisive
Foster 13 Peter, Telegraph's US Editor based in Washington DC. He moved to America in January
2012 after three years based in Beijing, where he covered the rise of China. Before that, he was based in New Delhi as South Asia correspondent, President Obamas weakness keeps Guantanamo open, Telegraph, 05/01/2013, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/10030663/PresidentObamas-weakness-keeps-Guantanamo-open.html And so it does; but the

fact that it remains open five years after Barack Obama promised to shut it down is a testament both to the scale of the legal and moral morass it represents, and the presidents own persistent inability to translate his fine words into action.

Succeeding in closing Guantanamo helps Obamas legacylaundry list of impacts

Human Rights First 12 (Human Rights First, Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Accept no government funding. How to Close GuantanamoBLUEPRINT FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION, December 2012. Web. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf)//MK The national security imperative to close Guantanamo remains as compelling todayperhaps more so as it was four years ago when the president first took office. As the administration ends the

war in Afghanistan, new questions will arise about the legal justifications for continued law of war detention. The Obama Administration should close Guantanamo on its own terms. On his second day in office, the president promised to close Guantanamo and reiterated that promise during the recent campaign. Whether he succeeds will be a significant test for his legacy. There is a path forward. Human Rights Firsts threestage plan offers a strategy for closing Guantanamo during President Obamas second term that builds on the successes to-date, ensures national security, adheres to American ideals, and restores U.S. global leadership on the rule of law.

Link Turns
Failure to close Guantanamo kills Obamas credibilityaction gets it back
Hanson 13 (Victor Davis Hanson, PhD in classics from Stanford University. Martin and Illie Anderson
Senior Fellow, tribune Media Services columnist, ritten or edited twenty-one books, including the New York Times best seller Carnage and Culture: Landmark Battles in the Rise of Western Power, awarded a National Humanities Medal, and the Bradley Prize. Visiting professor at the US Naval Academy, Stanford University, Hillsdale College, and Pepperdine University. Obamas Bluster Pulpit, Hoover Institutional Journal. July 3, 2013. http://www.hoover.org/publications/definingideas/article/150931)//MK The terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, like the Iranian nuclear program and the Assad regime, also earns frequent presidential tough talk. In January 22, 2009, the newly inaugurated President Obama promised to close Guantnamo Bay within one year: to restore the standards of due process and the core constitutional values that have made this country great even in the midst of war, even in dealing with terrorism. Yet in the summer

of 2009, Obama granted a six-month extension to his newly formed Guantnamo closing commission. That delay lasted for nearly two years , as the
President signed various executive orders, creating new review processes for detainees, to establish, as a discretionary matter, a process to review on a periodic basis the executive branchs continued, discretionary exercise of existing detention authority in individual cases. By April 2011, Obama

ordered terrorist mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed back to Guantanamo. In the words of The Washington Post, that decision marked the effective abandonment of the president's promise to close the military detention center. If, in January
2013, the State Department finally closed the office of the envoy for shutting down the prison at Guantnamo Bay, Obama nonetheless reiterated in his recent Berlin speech that he would be redoubling our efforts to close the prison at Guantanamo. After years of such bluster about Guantanamo, Iran, and Syria, few are any longer listening. Former President Bill Clinton, for example, before a supposedly private audience, recently complained that the president risks appearing like a total wuss over his inaction in Syria. The president frequently adds familiar emphatics like make no mistake about it, in point of fact, and let me be perfectly clear that in paradoxical fashion serve as tip-offs that consequences will not follow his tough rhetoric.

Obama looks weak while Guantanamo remains openclosing it gives him more leverage
Tuttle 7/21 (James Tuttle, 21 years in the Military, retired. Obama Flounders: Hope Isnt Enough
Without Conviction or Direction, Politics. July 21st, 2013. Web. http://misguidedchildren.com/politics/2013/07/obama-flounders-hope-isnt-enough-without-conviction-ordirection)//MK Now we are giving aid to the Syrian rebels who eat the hearts of their defeated foes. They behead any of the government troops still alive. While in Egypt we seem resigned to working with whoever can fill

Tabir Square with the most people at the moment. Immediately after his election in 2008, President elect Obama said in response to a question from Steve Kroft on 60 Minutes about the use of executive orders, I have said repeatedly I intend to close Guantanamo. Five years later,

prisoners in Guantanamo are trying to starve themselves to death because, whatever he said he intended, he hasnt done. He can blame the Republicans all he wants, but as Senator Obama said in a 2007 debate, When we have a situation like Guantanamo where we have suspended Habeas Corpus, to the extent we are not being true to our values and our ideals, that sends a negative message to the world and gives us less leverage when we want deal with countries who are abusing human rights. As they say, hope is not a strategy, but it turns out that was and has been President Obamas plan for dealing with the world. The Hallmark of great presidents is clarity of vision and purpose or at least the perception of it.
In his best comments as a candidate, Barack Obama offered that like few other political figures of this or any time. He seemed to believe deeply in his mission, so many Americans believed. Indeed many across the globe agreed.

Obama backed by members of congresswilling to fight

Moran 6/6 (Jim Moran, Virginia congressman. Moran, 26 Lawmakers Send Letter to Obama Calling
for Swift Action to Close Guantanmo, press release. June 6, 2013. Web. http://moran.house.gov/pressrelease/moran-26-lawmakers-send-letter-obama-calling-swift-action-close-guantanmo)//MK Washington, DC Congressman Jim Moran, Northern Virginia Democrat, today led 26 lawmakers in sending a letter to President Obama applauding his commitment to

the closure of Guantanamo and calling for swift action on his pledge to take steps to close the prison facility. The letter comes in advance of Appropriations Committee debate on the Fiscal Year 2014 Department of Defense
Appropriations Bill, which contains a number of limitations against transferring detainees out of Guantanamo, including the 86 inmates who have been cleared for release. Excerpts from the letter include: You are right to lift the ban on detainee transfers to Yemen and to appoint a new special envoy with the responsibility of ensuring that detainees are transferred out of Guantanamo. We also echo

your call for Congress to repeal the unnecessary restrictions on the transfer of detainees. We are eager to see you follow through on your strong words with decisive action so that we can move forward to the day when we can finally shut the doors on this prison. We stand ready to support a serious effort to close Guantanamo. Joining Moran on the letter are
Representatives James P. McGovern (D-MA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Jim McDermott (D-WA), Jared Polis (D-CO), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), John Conyers (D-MI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Janice D. Schakowsky (D-IL), Keith Ellison (D-MN), Sam Farr (D-CA), Jared Huffman (D-CA), Matthew A. Cartwright (D-PA), Mark Pocan (D-WI), Judy Chu (D-CA), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Peter A. DeFazio (D-OR), Charles B. Rangel (D-NY), Earl Blumenauer (D-OR), Bobby L. Rush (D-IL), Donald M. Payne (D-NJ), Beto ORourke (D-TX), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Joseph Heck (DNV), and Jim Himes (D-CT). Rep. Moran has called for closure of Guantanamo Bay for more than a decade and remains one the strongest voices for the effort. Recently, Moran held yet another briefing to outline steps for the facilitys closure and this week introduced an amendment to the FY 14 Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Bill

that would have lifted the prohibition on using funds to renovate any U.S. facilities in order to house Guantanamo detainees. The situation at Guantanamo Bays detention facility has devolved into an immediate humanitarian crisis. 86 prisoners at Guantanamo have been cleared by the U.S. intelligence community for release to other countries because it has been determined that they dont pose a national security risk to the U.S. 103 of the 166 prisoners at

Guantanamo are engaged in a hunger strike, with 37 being painfully force-fed through tubes through their noses to be kept alive against their will.

Squo Links
Support for closing Guantanamo is growing in the status quo
(Reuters 6/9/13, Support growing to close Guantanamo prison: senator NBC news, http://www.nbcnews.com/id/52149878/ns/politics/t/support-growing-close-guantanamo-prisonsenator/#.UfRevOBJBUQ, DS) WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Republican Senator John McCain said on Sunday there is increasing public support for closing the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and moving detainees to a facility on the U.S. mainland. "There's renewed impetus. And I think that most Americans are more ready," McCain, who went to Guantanamo last week with White House chief of staff Denis McDonough and California Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein, told CNN's "State of the Union" program. McCain, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said he and fellow Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, of South Carolina, are working with the

Obama administration on plans that could relocate detainees to a maximumsecurity prison in Illinois. "We're going to have to look at the whole issue, including giving them
more periodic review of their cases," McCain, of Arizona, said. President Barack Obama has pushed to close Guantanamo, saying in a speech in May it "has become a symbol around the world for an America that flouts the rule of law." The camp holds 166 prisoners picked up in the war on terrorism, most of whom have been held without charges for more than a decade. McCain and others who favor closing the prison have been unable to overcome opposition in Congress, where many Republicans say the administration has not offered satisfactory alternatives on what to do with the detainees. Advertise Meanwhile, detainees have complained of abuse and torture, which the administration denies, while rights activists and international observers have criticized the government's use of the prison. Obama, a Democrat who promised in his 2008 election campaign to close the prison, pledged last month to lift a ban imposed on transfers of Guantanamo detainees to Yemen, one of the core obstacles to clearing out the detention camp. Of the 86 detainees who have been cleared for transfer or release, 56 are from Yemen, where al Qaeda has a dangerous presence. An unknown number of the 80 other prisoners at the camp who are not cleared are Yemeni as well. More than 100 prisoners in the camp have joined a hunger strike to protest the failure to resolve their fate after more than a decade of detention, and 41 are being force-fed through tubes inserted into their noses and down into their stomachs because they have lost so much weight.

Congress is starting to act now-we post date

Miranda Green 7/24/13, Miranda Green is a reporter for The Daily Beast. She's previously held positions at ABC 7/ Newschannel 8 and CBS's 60 Minutes. She covers politics, business and sustainability., Senate Hearing to Push for Guantnamo Closure, Plan to Move Detainees http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/07/24/senate-hearing-to-push-for-guantanamo-closure-planto-move-detainees.html, DS) President Obama and Guantnamo Bay prisoners have something in common: they both say they are being held captive by Congress. But a renewed congressional effort to close the Cuban detention center is seeking to change that. A watchtower is seen in the currently closed Camp X-Ray, which was the first detention facility to hold enemy combatants at the U.S. Naval Station on June 27 in Guantnamo Bay, Cuba. (Joe Raedle/Getty) A Senate committee hearing

scheduled for Wednesday will be the first of significance to address closing

Guantnamo Bay since 2009, when Obama made his first and failed concerted push to shutter the prison. The hearing marks an amped-up effort by members of Congress to address Guantnamo and to acknowledge current pitfalls within the system. Congress and the
administration have been complicit in the current situation, which harms our national security and leaves more than 150 detainees in limbo. We need to address the future of the prison swiftly and decisively, Sen. Dick Durbin (DIllinois), chairman of the subcommittee on the Constitution, civil rights, and human rights, which is holding the hearing, told The Daily Beast in a statement. This hearing will be the first step toward putting this dark period behind us once and for all. The hearing is called Closing Guantnamo: The National Security, Fiscal, and Human Rights Implications, and if the name is any indication, it will have a lot of ground to cover. In his speech at the National Defense University in May, Obama reasserted his commitment to closing the detention camps in Cuba, but a clear proposal for carrying that out has yet to emerge, and a plan for action after Guantnamo is closed is even more elusive. In his most recent major counterterrorism speech, a wide-ranging address delivered in late May, President Obama reiterated the need to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay. The problem that we face is of course almost the same. There are human-rights issues involved and counterterrorism rights involved, and then theres the question of where, if you close Guantnamo, the people who are now there go, Anthony Cordesman, chairman of strategy for the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said of the issues still on the table. Of course suggestions have been passed around. Most Democrats propose bringing the remaining 166 Guantnamo detainees to the U.S, housing them in high-security facilities, and trying those who are fit for trial in military tribunals. Congress needs to accept that at least some Guantnamo detainees will end up in the U.S. for incarceration or trial in some form, said Ken Gude, vice president of the Center for American Progress. One former Guantnamo detainee is currently residing in the maximum-security facility in Florence, Colorado, so the world isnt ending. Congress has to accept that we are a dozen years past 9/11 and Osama bin Laden is dead. Legal barriers now

prohibit defense funding from being used to transfer any Guantnamo detainees to the United States for any reason, including medical. It is that
amendment, listed in the National Defense Authorization Act, that must be changed to start the process of Guantnamo extraditions. What proponents of closing Guantnamo are hoping to

see from Wednesdays hearing is a proposal to address attacking that NDAA amendment and a follow-up game plan for Guantnamo transfers.
Obamas taking the blame in the status quo-speech proves (The Hill 5/22/13, Capitol Hill reporting magazine, Obama, lawmakers ready to renew push to
shutter Guantnamo Bay prison http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/301203-obama-lawmakersready-to-renew-push-to-shutter-guantanamo-bay DS) As President Obama gears up for a new push to close Guantnamo Bay, lawmakers from both parties are skeptical the president will be successful in persuading Congress to shutter the facility. Obama is delivering a speech on national security Thursday, where White House officials say he will detail efforts to fulfill a vow that he made in the first week of his presidency. The president is making a new push after Congress blocked attempts to close Guantnamo during his first term and placed additional restrictions on sending detainees out of the facility. While supporters of closing the prison are encouraged by the presidents pledge to return to the issue, they say they havent yet heard how he will win over lawmakers opposed to his detention policies. Congress has blocked it, so hes going to have to find a way to remove the blockages of Congress, and hopefully hell let us know how hell do that, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) told reporters Tuesday. Levin wrote a letter two weeks ago to the White House urging the president to do what he can without Congress to close the facility. He wants Obama to

appoint an official in charge of relocating the more than 80 detainees at the camp who have been cleared for release. Senate Intelligence Committee Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), another vocal opponent of Guantnamo, wrote to the White House last month urging a transfer of the cleared detainees. Levin said that, while the defense authorization bill has restricted the administrations ability to transfer detainees, a national security waiver provided a clear route to moving detainees to some third countries. Levin told The Hill on Tuesday that he had yet to receive a response to his letter. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), who supports closing Guantnamo, said he has spoken with the White House recently about its efforts, but complained that a detailed plan has yet to be put forward. Hes never come up with a viable plan, McCain said. We have already committed to try to work with the president to close Guantnamo. The devil is in the details. Obama said last month that he going to go back at this, and he is expected to lay the groundwork for plans to close Guantnamo in his Thursday speech, which will also focus on drones, targeted killing and the war against al Qaeda. I think it is critical for us

to understand that Guantnamo is not necessary to keep America safe, Obama said. It is expensive. It is inefficient. ... It is a recruitment tool for extremists. It needs to be closed. White House press secretary Jay Carney said Tuesday that Obama is determined to see the facility closed, and that he will address that subject in his speech. White House officials have said that the president is considering a range of
options, including reappointing an official to the vacant State Department position for moving detainees, as lawmakers have called for.

Link Shield
Obama appointed a minion to do the plan-that takes the blame
(Abby D. Philip, 6/17/13, ABCNews, politics reporter, Bridge-Builder Lawyer Picked to Spearhead Guantanamo Closing, Bridge-Builder Lawyer Picked to Spearhead Guantanamo Closing http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2013/06/bridge-builder-lawyer-picked-to-spearhead-guantanamoclosing/ DS) Cliff Sloan, a top Washington lawyer, has been chosen as the State Departments special envoy to close Guantanamo Bay, marking a step forward in what has been an arduous effort to fulfill President Obamas campaign promise to close the prison. This

announcement reflects the administrations commitment to closing the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, said State Department spokesman Jen Psaki today. Special Envoy Sloan brings a wealth of experience as an accomplished litigator and pragmatic problem-solver, a skill set that will prove valuable as he serves as the lead
negotiator for the transfer of Guantanamo detainees abroad and manages the multitude of diplomatic issues related to the presidents directives to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, implement transfer determination and conduct a periodic review of those detainees who are not approved for transfer. Sloan, a partner at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP & Affiliates, has served

in both President George H.W. Bush and President Bill Clintons administrations in the Justice Department and as associate White House counsel. The
news of Sloans appointment was first reported by The Associated Press on Sunday. Secretary of State John Kerry praised Sloan in a statement Sunday as the type of bridge-builder needed for the role. It will not be easy, but if anyone can effectively navigate the space between agencies and branches of government, its Cliff, Kerry said, according to the Associated Press. I appreciate his willingness to take on this challenge. Cliff and I share the presidents conviction that Guantanamos continued operation isnt in our security interests.

War on Terror Answers

Aff Uq
War on terror officially ended by Obama
Shapiro 13 (Ben, American conservative political commentator, radio talk show host, attorney, and
media consultant. A native of Los Angeles, Shapiro graduated from the University of California, Los Angeles and Harvard Law School. He has written five books, starting with Brainwashed: How Universities Indoctrinate America's Youth in 2004, writes a column for Creators Syndicate, and is editorat-large of Breitbart News., Obama Declares War on Terror Over, Townhall.com, May 29, 2013,http://townhall.com/columnists/benshapiro/2013/05/29/obama-declares-war-on-terror-overn1607729) SS In a hallmark speech last week, President Obama unilaterally declared the war on

terror over. The end of that war, Obama stated, meant we could return to the halcyon days of the Clinton-era law enforcement, during which America experienced a
spate of terrorist attacks ranging from the first attack on the World Trade Center in 1993 to the Khobar Towers bombing in 1996 to the bombings of American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania in 1998 to the USS Cole bombing in 2000.

Obama says the War on terror is over

McFarland 13 (Kathleen Troia K.T., a Fox News National Security Analyst and host of FoxNews.com's "DefCon 3." She is a Distinguished Adviser to the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and served in national security posts in the Nixon, Ford and Reagan administrations. She wrote Secretary of Defense Weinbergers November 1984 "Principles of War Speech" which laid out the Weinberger Doctrine. Be sure to watch "K.T." every Wednesday at 1 p.m. ET on FoxNews.com's "DefCon3"-- already one of the Web's most watched national security programs., Obama thinks we won the War on Terror and it's time to move on, FOX News Network, LLC, May 23, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/05/23/obama-thinks-won-war-on-terror-and-it-time-to-move-on/) SS

President Obama delivered what was billed by the White House as a major speech on national security Thursday at the historic National Defense University. In short, Mr. Obama thinks the War on Terror is over, and he won it. There may be a few final details to mop about, but it's time to move on to more important things.

Non-unique already tons of terrorists domestically

AlterNet, 2009 (Alternet, Top 5 Myths About Closing Guantanamo, AlterNet, 1/27/09,
http://www.alternet.org/story/122895/top_5_myths_about_closing_guantanamo?page=0%2C0) MYTH #2 -- DETAINEES ARE TOO DANGEROUS TO BRING INTO THE UNITED STATES: This

myth is the one that conservatives cite most often. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) has said that transferring Guantanamo detainees to U.S. soil "will endanger American lives." Yesterday on NBC's Meet the Press, Boehner said that it would be "irresponsible"
to transfer these "terrorists who have attempted to kill Americans." This morning, Fox and Friends took pictures of various terrorists and went around to Pennsylvania residents and asked them if they wanted

these people living in their "backyards." However, U.S.

federal prisons are already home to dozens of the most dangerous terrorists the world has ever known. As Salon's Glenn Greenwald has written, "Both before and after 9/11, the U.S. has repeatedly and successfully tried alleged high-level Al Qaeda operatives and other accused Islamic Terrorists in our normal federal courts -- in fact, the record is far more successful than the series of debacles that has taken place in the military commissions system at Guantanamo." In fact, there have been 145 terrorist convictions in federal courts since 9/11. Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) has said that he wouldn't necessarily oppose transferring detainees who are convicted terrorists headed to trial to the state's "Supermax", a role that the prison is already playing and that
CAP recommended in its report. Rep. John Murtha (R-PA) has also expressed a willingness to bring some detainees into his district, stating, "I mean, they're no more dangerous in a prison in my district than they are in Guantanamo."

No Link
Closing Guantanamo will NOT lead to former prisoners engaging in terrorist activity Susan Seligson, masters in journalism at BUs College of Communication, 5-28-13, Guantanamo: the
Legal Mess Behind the Ethical Mess, BU Today, interviewed in this article is Susan M. Akram, a School of Law clinical professor of law and former executive director of Bostons Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project, http://www.bu.edu/today/2013/gitmo-the-legal-mess-behind-the-ethical-mess/ Do you think estimates are accurate that a significant percentage of released Gitmo detainees have participated in terrorism since their release? There are conflicting statistics of the recidivism rate of the detainees, as well as what is meant by returning to terrorist activity. In 2009, the New York Times reported that an unreleased Pentagon report claimed that one in seven of the detainees released from Guantanamo was involved in terrorism upon return. If that number is accurate, that represents about 14 percent of the released detainees. However, in two comprehensive studies of Defense Department information, Seton Hall Law School professor Mark Denbeaux concluded that the governments definition of terrorist activity was so broad as to include anti-US propaganda and giving press interviews. And in 2012, John Brennan, the White House counterterrorism chief, stated that of the approximately 50 detainees the Obama administration released, none was suspected or returning to terrorist activity. It is also important to remember that 92 percent of the Guantanamo detainees were never al-Qaeda fighters in the first place, so if they return to terrorism, it is likely that it is their treatment at Guantanamo that radicalized them.

No one goes back to terror

AlterNet, 2009 (Alternet, Top 5 Myths About Closing Guantanamo, AlterNet, 1/27/09,
http://www.alternet.org/story/122895/top_5_myths_about_closing_guantanamo?page=0%2C0) MYTH #4 -- 61 RELEASED DETAINEES HAVE RETURNED TO THE BATTLEFIELD: One conservative talking point that has been especially effective at making its way into traditional

media reporting is that 61 "of the people that were incarcerated at Guantanamo and then released have returned to the battlefield, have engaged in further terrorist activities," as CNN's Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr said yesterday.
The Associated Press has made a similar claim. But in fact, as Media Matters has reported,

"according to the Pentagon, the 61-detainee figure includes 43 former prisoners who are suspected of, but have not been confirmed as, having 'return[ed] to the fight.'" Bergen has also noted that "returning to the fight" could simply mean writing a negative op-ed. Mark Denbeaux, Director of the Seton Hall
Law School Center for Policy and Research, has been tracking the Bush administration's claims. He told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow, "Their numbers have changed from 20 to 12 to seven to

more than five to two to a couple to a few -- 25, 29, 12 to 24. Every time, the number has been different. In fact, every time they give a number, they don't identify a date, a place, a time, a name or an incident to support their claim."

Link Turn Recruitment

Guantanamo serves as a recruitment tool for terrorist organizations
HRF 12 (Human Rights First, December 2012, independent advocacy and action organization that
challenges America to live up to its ideals, How to close Guantanamo, Online, http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf, page 1, accessed 7/27/13) PE As recently as this past October, President Obama reiterated his conviction that

Guantanamo should be closed. Failure to close Guantanamo risks inflicting a blot on U.S. leadership and counterterrorism policy for years to come. Guantanamo remains a recruiting tool for al Qaeda and affiliated terrorist groups, placing U.S troops and the nation at risk. Key U.S. allies oppose the detention and trial system at Guantanamo, and the United States may be unable to secure extradition of terrorism suspects if the result will be military detention or trial by military commission there. In an era of budget austerity, operating Guantanamo at a cost $150 million per year,
more than thirty times the cost of keeping captives on U.S. soil, is fiscally irresponsible when most detainees are already set for transfer.2

Link Turn Strategy

Closing the prison puts counterterrorism policies back on track
Human Rights First 12 (Human Rights First, Human Rights First is a nonprofit, nonpartisan
international human rights organization based in New York and Washington D.C. Accept no government funding. How to Close GuantanamoBLUEPRINT FOR THE NEXT ADMINISTRATION, December 2012. Web. http://www.humanrightsfirst.org/wpcontent/uploads/pdf/blueprints2012/HRF_Guantanamo_blueprint.pdf)//MK

The imperative to close Guantanamo has increased as the United States prepares for the end of major combat operations in Afghanistanthe conflict in which most of the Guantanamo detainees were captured a decade or more ago. The United States is already transitioning detention operations in Afghanistan to the Afghans. By closing Guantanamo, the Obama Administration will align its policy objectives with a forward-looking post-war counterterrorism strategy that does not depend on maintaining active military detention facilities. Moreover, Guantanamo detainees are being held under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which provides detention authority only while hostilities are ongoing. As major combat operations in Afghanistan come to an end and the secretary of defense and other national security officials talk of the strategic defeat of core al Qaeda, courts are likely to take a renewed interest in whether there remains authority to hold Guantanamo detainees. Closing Guantanamo will help to place counterterrorism policies on a more stable and durable legal footing.

A2 Recidivism
No turn recidivism rates are inflated no more than in normal prisons
Froomkin, 11 (contributing editor of Nieman Reports, and the former senior Washington
correspondent for the Huffington Post. He wrote the White House Watch column for the Washington Post website from 2004 to 2009, and was editor of the site from 2000 to 2003, Report Challenges Purported Guantanamo 'Recidivism' Figures, 05/25/11 07:25 PM ET, Online, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/01/11/guantanamo-recidivism-report-challenge_n_807690.html, accessed 7/27/13) PE WASHINGTON -- On the ninth anniversary of the first detainee's arrival at the infamous prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, a Washington think tank challenged intelligence estimates suggesting that large numbers of former detainees have taken up arms against the United States. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper claimed in December -- without offering any evidence -- that 13.5

percent of former Guantanamo detainees are confirmed, and an additional 11.5 percent are suspected of "reengaging" in terrorist or insurgent activities after their release. The conservative media embraced the storyline that as many as one in four former detainees had returned to the battlefield, up sharply from the prior year. But three scholars with the New America Foundation are out with a new report -- this one backed up with data -- concluding that only 6 percent of released detainees engaged or are suspected of having engaged with insurgents aimed at attacking U.S. interests. Another 2 percent engaged or are suspected of having engaged against non-U.S. targets.
Members of a NAF panel Tuesday afternoon also challenged the notion that some detainees "returned" to the battlefield, noting that many were innocent to begin with. Tom Wilner, a Washington attorney who argued on behalf of Guantanamo detainees in the Supreme Court's 2004 and 2008 cases in which they won habeas corpus rights, described the plight of one of his former clients, a Kuwaiti named Abdallah Saleh Ali Al Ajmi . "I was absolutely convinced that he did not do anything wrong," Wilner said. "But I was concerned about his release, because he had become furious. He had turned, at Guantanamo, into this sort of madman." And indeed, less than three years after the Bush Administration sent him back to Kuwait, Al Ajmi carried out a suicide bombing in Iraq. British freelance journalist Andy Worthington, who tracks Guantanamo detainees, said he was concerned at how the recidivism figures were "conjured up out of nowhere" but treated as fact by many mainstream media outlets. "It's bad journalism," he said. Most reports also lacked context. "You don't have anything like a zero recidivism rate in any prison system," he said. The figures were cited by conservatives in their arguments against closing Guantanamo. Democrats, afraid of the political repercussions, joined with Republicans to include provisions in the latest defense authorization bill intended to prevent Obama from closing Guantanamo. Obama last week called those provisions "dangerous and unprecedented." "Every day that a place like Guantanamo is open is an insult to values that decent American people hold," Worthington said. "I am furious and ashamed," Wilner said. "I think Guantanamo is a symbol for fear and

weakness."