Tournament: Wake | Round: Quarters | Opponent: Harvard BS | Judge: Sommers, Allen, Crowe, Woodruff, Bausch
ERROR

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 2 | Opponent: Vermont Broughton-Brough | Judge: Reed, Clark, Spiker

Privilege

We should take collectivize action against social ills—a personality litmus test dooms political projects—their claim that social position determines activism and correct epistemology is essentialist and prevents a focus on universal rights

Rob the Idealist, Carleton College, 10/1/13, Tim Wise 26 The Failure of Privilege Discourse, www.orchestratedpulse.com/2013/10/tim-wise-failure-privilege-discourse/

I don’t find it meaningful to criticize Tim Wise the person and judge whether he’s living up to some anti-racist bona fides. Instead, I choose to focus on the paradigm of "White privilege" upon which his work is based, and its conceptual and practical limitations. Although the personal is political, not all politics is personal; we have to attack systems.  To paraphrase the urban poet and philosopher Meek Mill: there are levels to this shit.
How I Define Privilege
There are power structures that shape individuals’ lived experiences.  Those structures provide and withhold
AND
instead eradicate the power structures that create the privileges in the first place.
The conventional wisdom on privilege often says that it’s "benefits" are "unearned". However, this belief ignores the reality and history that privilege is earned and maintained through violence. Systemic advantages are allocated and secured as a class, and simply because an individual hasn’t personally committed the acts, it does not render their class dominance unearned.
The history and modern reality of violence is why Tim Wise’ comparison between whiteness and
AND
, irrespective of its advantages, does not follow that pattern of violence.
Privilege is Failing Us
Unfortunately, I think our use of the term "privilege" is no longer a productive way for us to gain a thorough understanding of systemic injustice, nor is it helping us to develop collective strategies to dismantle those systems. Basically, I never want to hear the word "privilege" again because the term is so thoroughly misused at this point that it does more harm than good.
Andrea Smith, in the essay "The Problem with Privilege", outlines the pitfalls of misapplied privilege theory.
Those who had little privilege did not have to confess and were in the position to be the judge of those who did have privilege.  Consequently, people aspired to be oppressed.  Inevitably, those with more privilege would develop new heretofore unknown forms of oppression from which they suffered… Consequently, the goal became not to actually end oppression but to be as oppressed as possible.  These rituals often substituted confession for political movement-building.
Andrea Smith, The Problem with Privilege
Dr. Tommy Curry says it more bluntly, "It’s not genius to say that in an oppressive society there are benefits to being in the superior class instead of the inferior one.  That’s true in any hierarchy, that’s not an ’aha’ moment."
Conceptually, privilege is best used when narrowly focused on explaining how structures generally shape
AND
privilege confessions" inadequately address the nexus between systemic power and individual behavior.
The undoing of privilege occurs not by individuals confessing their privileges or trying to think
AND
for individuals to recognize how they were shaped by structural forms of oppression.
Andrea Smith, The Problem with Privilege
Bigger than Tim Wise
However, the problem with White privilege isn’t simply that Tim Wise, a white
AND
attacks the systemic ills that create the personal injustices in the first place.
A substantive critique of privilege requires us to get beyond identity politics.  It’s not about good people and bad people; it’s a bad system. 

 It’s not just White people that participate in the White privilege industry, although not everyone equally benefits/profits (see: Tim Wise).
Dr. Tommy Curry takes elite Black academics to task for their role in profiting from the White privilege industry while offering no challenge to White supremacy.
These conversations about White privilege are not conversations about race, and certainly not about racism; it’s a business where Blacks market themselves as racial therapists for White people…
The White privilege discourse became a bourgeois distraction.  It’s a tool that we use
AND
to be attacked all the way to the very bottom of American society.
Dr. Tommy Curry, Radio Interview
The truth is that a lot of people, marginalized groups included, simply want
AND
of US corporations to repeal a Haitian law that raised the minimum wage).
Adolph Reed, writing in 1996, predicted the quagmire of identity politics in the Age of Obama.
In Chicago, for instance, we’ve gotten a foretaste of the new breed of
AND
is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics.
Adolph Reed Jr., Class Notes: Posing As Politics and Other Thoughts on the American Scene
Although it has always been the case, Obama’s election and subsequent presidency has made it starkly clear that it’s not just White people that can perpetuate White supremacy.  Systems of oppression condition all members of society to accept systemic injustice, and there are (unequal) incentives for both marginalized and dominant groups to perpetuate these structures.  Our approaches to injustice must reflect this reality.
This isn’t a naïve plea for "unity", nor am I saying that talking
AND
to redirect their behavior, there’s a difference between establishing boundaries and puritanism.
Fighting systemic marginalization and exploitation requires more than good character, and we cannot fetishize personal morals over collective action.

at: view from nowhere

Our analysis isn’t disembodied—situated impartiality isn’t neutral or objective, but it does allow contestation

Disch, professor and associate chair of women’s studies – U Michigan, ’93
(Lisa J., "MORE TRUTH THAN FACT: Storytelling as Critical Understanding in the Writings of Hannah Arendt," Political Theory Vol. 21 No. 4, p. 665-694)

Arendt seems to have viewed Thucydides as she did herself, as a political theorist
AND
Although she conceals it, Arendt makes a significant break with the universalizing assumptions 

of Kant’s thought. The departure from Kant’s "taste" is even more pronounced
AND
other. The point is not consensus or accuracy but plurality and accountability.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 2 | Opponent: Vermont Broughton-Brough | Judge: Reed, Clark, Spiker

2ac fiat da

No link to institutions

Michael Eber 5, former Director of Debate at Michigan State University, "Everyone Uses Fiat", April 8th, http://www.opensubscriber.com/message/edebate@ndtceda.com/1077700.html

It is shocking to me how, after literally a DECADE of debates, no
AND
the stupid phrases "pre-fiat" and "post-fiat."

The performances of the 1ac and 1nc are not exclusive – their arg that we should only seek to effectuate political change here and now is an excuse for dismissing the suffering of people outside the parochial circle of our immediate experience – the impact is ongoing violence and dictatorship

Nick Cohen 14, columnist for the Spectator, Noam Chomsky in the Crimea, March 3, http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/nick-cohen/2014/03/chomsky-in-the-crimea/

In short, the activist left will not tell its followers that we are witnessing imperialism: not ’cultural imperialism’ or ’neo-colonialism’ or any of those other catchall, thought-forbidding phrases, but the real thing.
Ukraine has not committed crimes against humanity, so there is no duty on foreign states to intervene to protect its citizens. It does not menace its neighbours or threaten the international order by seeking to obtain weapons of mass destruction. Moreover anyone with a sense of history knows that Putin is invading a region where the Russian empire in its Stalinist stage persecuted and deported native and Muslim Tartars.
Yet the same people who are the first to shout ’Islamophobia’ and pledge their allegiance to endangered minorities stay silent. Just as they stay silent about the Syrian atrocities, although they would have been the first to march if the West had intervened after the Assad regime used chemical weapons.
Justifications for these hypocrisies are hard to find. Modern people admit to sexual behaviour their ancestors would have died rather than admit. But do not like to say that they are hypocrites, let alone explain their deceits. A few readers, however, have justified themselves by pointing to an argument by Noam Chomsky, in which he explained the double standards of his own career to his own satisfaction and the satisfaction of his easily pleased followers.
The Chomsky apologia is worth considering because it defends the rejection of universal values by millions of people in the rich world, many of whom will never have heard of Noam Chomsky, but feel as he does.
Chomsky divided his defence of concentrating his criticism on the West and ignoring crimes against humanity by others in two.
First, he said that the United States was the main cause of terror in the world – ’the larger component of international violence’. I guess he lost many readers as soon as the words were out of his mouth. Before you dismiss them and say that Chomsky and his kind are hysterics, however, you must be careful not to make the same mistake as they do.
Human rights are not a competition. Western crimes are not diminished just because it
AND
because it has been like that for as long as anyone can remember.
The way to avoid double standard is so clear I feel embarrassed pointing it out
AND
do something about American policy, but nothing about the crimes of others:
’The ethical value of one’s actions depends on their anticipated and predictable consequences. It is very easy to denounce the atrocities of someone else. That has about as much ethical value as denouncing atrocities that took place in the 18th century.’
I will pass over the self-serving notion that Chomsky, brave man that
AND
atrocities of someone else", which slips from his lips like a sneer.
Although there is something to be said for the notion that protest, like charity
AND
and sanctions. In short, Chomsky rules out the idea of solidarity.
When solidarity goes, all kinds of contortions become possible. The worst elements of
AND
would also be marching – but this time against a ’western war’.
As events have turned out, the West has done nothing worth mentioning in the Levant, so the mass murder in Syria can be dumped in the file marked ’the atrocities of someone else,’ and forgotten.
The lack of principle on display shows the breakdown of any coherent far left project. We have seen alliances between western leftists and radical Islamists, even though radical Islam is a vicious movement of the religious right. Now we are seeing left-wing defences of Putin, even though Putin wants to make Russia a bulwark of reactionary politics.
I use the word ’alliances’ because the indifference to ’the atrocities of someone
AND
know that they are in trouble . How, it asks, is it
~The~ job of an ’anti-war’ movement is to attack its own passive government while parroting the arguments of a thuggish, illiberal power threatening its neighbour with invasion.
The only answer is the answer Chomsky provides: the relativist Western left is interested only in the West, and cannot even think about ’the atrocities of someone else’.
The people of the Ukraine may not have much to be grateful for, but
AND
as remote and distant as – what else? – the 18th century.

at: rights

 white===

The existence of habeas petitions promoting human rights proves that an institution can be caught up in systems of whiteness while still combatting violence

Robert A Williams Jr 90, "Encounters on the Frontiers of International Human Rights Law: Redefining the Terms of Indigenous Peoples’ Survival in the World", Duke Law Journal, Vol. 1990, No. 4, Frontiers of Legal Thought III, (Sep., 1990), pp. 660-704

Not too long ago, it was fashionable for some legal academics in this country
AND
develop international legal standards for the protection of indigenous peoples’ human rights.12

at: settlers

The use of ’tradition’ to prevent human rights is violent and wrong – we should oppose both settlers and indigenous people who advocate torture or privatize water resources or deny access to better schools

Graeme Reid 13, director of the LGBT Rights division at Human Rights Watch, "World Report 2013", https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/wr2013_web.pdf

But a close look at the context from which this resolution arose reveals that traditional
AND
tradition" subordinates human rights. It should be the other way around.

body

Making the ballot about our so-called performance in its essence – the impact is violent confessions

Andrea Smith, Ph.D., co-founder of Incite21 Women of Color Against Violence, UC Riverside Associate Professor, 2013, Geographies of Privilege, Unsettling the Privilege of Self-Reflexivity, Kindle

In my experience working with a multitude of anti-racist organizing projects over the
AND
within which we live so that we become different peoples in the process.

at: state link

The state is not a Platonic entity – it is a configured social space where we can impose strategies – that’s why the 1ac method is not passive

Brubaker 4
Rogers Brubaker, Department of Sociology, UCLA, 2004, In the Name of the Nation: Reflectionson Nationalism and Patriotism, Citizenship Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, www.sailorstraining.eu/admin/download/b28.pdf

This, then, is the basic work done by the category ’nation’ in
AND
between Shi’ites and Sunnis, Kurds and Arabs, North and South.2
In contexts like this, the category ’nation’ can also be used in another
AND
nation exclude other ethnoreligious, ethnolinguistic, or ethnoracial groups in other settings.
In the United States and other relatively settled, longstanding nation-states, ’
AND
in the social sciences and humanities, ’nation’ is a suspect category.
Few American scholars wave flags, and many of us are suspicious of those who
AND
, the ethnic group, the class, the party, the faith.
In addition to the sense that nationalism is dangerous, and closely connected to some
AND
out of sync with the basic principles that structure social life today.4
The post-nationalist stance combines an empirical claim, a methodological critique, and
AND
multinational political space. Certainly nationhood remains the universal formula for legitimating statehood.
 Can one speak of an ’unprecedented porosity’ of borders, as one recent
AND
rather than looser (Mann, 1997, pp. 491–2).
The methodological critique is that the social sciences have long suffered from ’methodological nationalism’
AND
social scientists have long been doing on border-spanning flows and networks.
But what follows from this critique? If it serves to encourage the study of
AND
or worse, a fundamental level of organization and fundamental locus of power.
The normative critique of the nation-state comes from two directions. From above, the cosmopolitan argument is that humanity as a whole, not the nation- state, should define the primary horizon of our moral imagination and political engagement (Nussbaum, 1996). From below, muticulturalism and identity politics celebrate group identities and privilege them over wider, more encompassing affiliations.
One can distinguish stronger and weaker versions of the cosmopolitan argument. The strong cosmopolitan
AND
moral imagination, our political energy, even perhaps our economic resources.9
The second strand of the normative critique of the nation-state—the multiculturalist
AND
identities and loyalties at the expense of state-wide identities and loyalties.
In the face of this twofold cosmopolitan and multiculturalist critique, I would like to
AND
done with both languages. I therefore want to consider them together here.
I want to suggest that patriotism and nationalism can be valuable in four respects. They can help develop more robust forms of citizenship, provide support for redistributive social policies, foster the integration of immigrants, and even serve as a check on the development of an aggressively unilateralist foreign policy.
First, nationalism and patriotism can motivate and sustain civic engagement. It is sometimes
AND
some level my problems, for which I have a special responsibility.12
Patriotic identification with one’s country—the feeling that this is my country, and
AND
commitments can furnish the energies and passions that motivate and sustain civic engagement. 

Supporting institutional rights a key necessary for struggles against oppression – we may not change the heart, but we can restrain the heartless

Cook 90
Anthony E. Cook, Florida University Associate law Professor, Beyond Critical legal Studies: The Reconstrutive Theology of Dr. Martin luther King, Jr., 1990, 103.5, JSTOR

Unlike some CLS scholars, King understood the importance of a system of individual rights
AND
—a reality itself more fully understood by those engaged in transformative struggle.
King’s Beloved Community accepted and expanded the liberal tradition of rights. King realized that
AND
to challenge and rectify historical practices that had objectified and subsumed their existence.
Although conservatives contended that the emphasis on rights disrupted the gradual moral evolution that would
AND
were necessary rights that no movement for social reconstruction could take for granted.
Furthermore, King saw the initial emphasis on civil rights, ~FN161~ I
AND
scope of personal duty to permit movement toward a more socially conscious community. 

at: victimization

there will always be tension between representing/not representing violence – eschewing it all together fails – affirming the aff and analyzing deployment of suffering solves

Elizabeth Dauphinée, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, 2007, "The Politics of the Body in Pain: Reading the Ethics of Imagery," Security Dialogue Vol. 38(2): 139–155

The point here is that if we are always already fundamentally occupied by the other
AND
might consider our uses of imagery and our range of options for response.

The alt renders pain and trauma unspeakable – forcing disclosure on the part of the speaker leads to ressentiment and rejecting a dialogue proliferates imageries of suffering – turns the k

Elizabeth Dauphinée, School of Social Sciences, University of Manchester, 2007, "The Politics of the Body in Pain: Reading the Ethics of Imagery," Security Dialogue Vol. 38(2): 139–155

This atomistic model of individual human beings with their unique interior landscapes translates into the
AND
– through a refocusing on the self – from the realm of politics.

at: linguistics

We can apply infinite perspectives to reach the best solution – don’t throw out expertism without evaluating its usefulness

Kathleen Higgins, University of Texas-Austin, Philosophy Professor, Winter 2013, Post-Truth Pluralism: The Unlikely Political Wisdom of Friedrich Nietzche, Kindle

Progressives are right that we live increasingly in a post-truth era, but
AND
to meanings. Citizens have more freedom to create new interpretations of facts.
This proliferation of viewpoints makes the challenge of democratically addressing contemporary problems more complex.
AND
address our current difficulties, or to advance liberal values in the culture.
A new progressive politics should have a different understanding of the truth than the one
AND
and power affect our determinations of what is true and what is false.
In the post­truth era, we should be able to articulate not one
AND
us for creative formulations of alternative possibilities for concerted responses to our problems.
Our era, in short, need not be an obstacle to taking common action
AND
can agree to disagree and still engage in pragmatic action in the World.

There are no fixed codes, to speak is to code switch, and insistence on a single preferable code is essentialist

Mellom 6 - Assistant Research Scientist for CLASE; Center for Latino Achievement and Success in Education CODE-SWITCHING AT A BILINGUAL SCHOOL IN COSTA RICA: IDENTITY, INTERTEXTUALITY AND NEW ORTRAITS OF COMPETENCE, PAULA JEAN MELLOM
http://athenaeum.libs.uga.edu/bitstream/handle/10724/9023/mellom_paula_j_200605_phd.pdf?sequence=1

On the other hand, some sociolinguists have tended to view code-switching as
AND
asserts that we must remember that all "standard languages" are hybrids.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 2 | Opponent: Vermont Broughton-Brough | Judge: Reed, Clark, Spiker

The United States Supreme Courts should restrict the President’s war powers authority to indefinitely detain, on the grounds that the Geneva Conventions are self-executing.

The plan is key to effective human rights treaties

Gruber, 7
(Law Prof-Florida International, "Who’s Afraid of Geneva Law," 39 Ariz. St. L.J. 1017, Winter, Lexis)

Internationalists and civil libertarians have widely praised Hamdi and Hamdan for creating a new era
AND
Court to be an international team player rather than a "lone ranger."

Otherwise, non-self-execution renders all treaty commitments null and void

Friedman, 5
(JD-University of Florida Law, "The Uneasy US Relationship with Human Rights Treaties: The Constitutional Treaty System and Non-Self-Execution Declarations," 17 Fla. J. Int’l L. 187, March, Lexis)

E. Policy Arguments Against Nonself-Execution Declarations: The International Implications
Regardless of whether the constitutional arguments against nonself-execution declarations pass muster, the
AND
, especially the desire to serve as an example to other nations. n445 

Enforcement of the ICCPR crucial to marshal support for a rights-based approach to water issues

Varma, 13
(Director of Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, 9/9, "Wòch nan soley: The denial of the right to water in Haiti," http://www.hhrjournal.org/2013/09/09/woch-nan-soley-the-denial-of-the-right-to-water-in-haiti/)

In addition to protections in domestic law, the right to water is also recognized
AND
water projects can contribute to fulfilling Haitians’ human rights by adopting this framework.

Right to water is protected under the ICCPR but the self-execution doctrine precludes recognition

WCU, 6
(World Conservation Union, 4/24, "Does international law recognise a human right to water?," http://data.iucn.org/dbtw-wpd/html/EPLP-051-water-human-right/II.20Does20international20law20recognise20a20human20right20to20water.html)

The legally binding human rights covenants of 1966, the International Covenant on Civil and
AND
water has been recognised as an integral part of several fundamental human rights.

ICCPR critical to recognition and enforcement of a global right to water

Huang, 8
(JD-University of Florida, "Not Just Another Drop in the Human Rights Bucket: The Legal Significance of a Codified Human Right to Water," 20 Fla. J. Int’l L. 353, December, Lexis)

Currently amidst the United Nations proclaimed Decade of Water for Life, n1 a vast
AND
and advocacy aspects of water management and a human right to water. n19

Legal recognition of the right to water key to solve water shortages and de-escalate conflicts

Gleick, 7
(President- Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, "The Human Right to Water," May,  http://www.pacinst.org/reports/human_right_may_07.pdf)

What is the point or advantage of explicitly acknowledging such a right? Even if
AND
and management strategies necessary for meeting those basic needs, quickly and completely. 

Water scarcity is increasing – it short-circuits cooperation in every region

Dinar et al 10/18/12
SHLOMI DINAR is associate professor in the Department of Politics and International Relations and associate director of the School of International and Public Affairs at Florida International University. LUCIA DE STEFANO is associate professor at Complutense University of Madrid and researcher at the Water Observatory of the Botín Foundation. JAMES DUNCAN is consultant on natural resource governance and geography with the World Bank. KERSTIN STAHL is senior scientist at the Institute of Hydrology in the University of Freiburg. KENNETH M. STRZEPEK is research scientist with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. AARON T. WOLF is a professor of geography in the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at Oregon State University, Foreign Affairs, October 18, 2012, "No Wars for Water", http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/138208/shlomi-dinar-lucia-de-stefano-james-duncan-kerstin-stahl-kenneth/no-wars-for-water?page=show

In short, predictions of a Water World War are overwrought. However, tensions
AND
, freshwater will only further frustrate stability efforts in the world’s volatile regions.

That causes wars

Reilly ’2 
(Kristie, Editor for In These Times, a nonprofit, independent, national magazine published in Chicago. We’ve been around since 1976, fighting for corporate accountability and progressive government. In other words, a better world, "NOT A DROP TO DRINK," http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/26/25/culture1.shtml)
*Cites environmental thinker and activist Vandana Shiva Maude Barlow and Tony Clarke—probably North America’s foremost water experts

The two books provide a chilling, in-depth examination of a rapidly emerging
AND
planet decreases, today’s low-level conflicts can only increase in intensity.

The plan also results in adherence to the convention against torture, that’s an inviolable human right

CVT 13, Center for Victims Against Torture, the center for victims of torture policy report: u.s. bi-partisan leadership against torture, April, http://www.cvt.org/sites/cvt.org/files/downloads/Report_Bipartisan20Leadership20Against20Torture_April202013.pdf

The United States, as a democratic society that respects the rule of law,
AND
and will not be seen to be a credible force for human rights.

Human rights are protections, pure and simple – they require universality to be effective

Michael Ignatief 1, Director of the Carr Center for Human Rights at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University, "The Attack on Human Rights", Foreign Affairs, November/December

But at the same time. Western defenders or human rights have traded too much
AND
case are entitled, not delegitimize to choose the good life for themselves."

The moral obligation to uphold universal human rights imbues the concept of ’personhood’ with meaning

Bernard den Ouden 97, philo prof at the University of Hartford, "Sustainable Development, Human Rights, and Postmodernism", PHIL 26 TECH 3:2 Winter

There are, however, limits to the postmodernist and social constructionist perspectives. To
AND
that we are at best what Dostoevsky referred to as "neurotic bipeds."

Disregarding rights means atrocity and dictatorship go unstopped

Richard D. Mohr 95, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, "The Perils of Postmodernism", The Harvard Gay 26 Lesbian Review, Fall 1995, pp. 9-13

But this sense of equality as non-degradation presupposes a culturally-neutral claim
AND
a way that holds out the prospect that they will lose the peace.

But embracing human rights does not obviate the need for difference – pluralism and contingency are only possible with basic protections

Zühtü Arslan 99, an assistant professor of the Faculty of Security Sciences at the Police Academy in Ankara, Turkey, "Taking Rights Less Seriously: Postmodernism and Human Rights", Res Publica 5: 195–215, http://www.philosophy.ru/library/pdf/234617.pdf

Incredulous of foundational truth claims, the postmodernists reject the idea that human beings have
AND
self and universality. Perhaps they need to begin taking rights more seriously.

Simulation of national security law debates is the best pedagogical approach—inculcates agency and decision-making skills

Laura K. Donohue, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown Law, 4/11/13, National Security Law Pedagogy and the Role of Simulations, http://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/National-Security-Law-Pedagogy-and-the-Role-of-Simulations.pdf

The concept of simulations as an aspect of higher education, or in the law
AND
full course at Georgetown Law. It has since gone through multiple iterations.
The initial concept followed on the federal full-scale Top Official ("TopOff") exercises, used to train government officials to respond to domestic crises.165 It adapted a Tabletop Exercise, designed with the help of exercise officials at DHS and FEMA, to the law school environment. The Tabletop used one storyline to push on specific legal questions, as students, assigned roles in the discussion, sat around a table and for six hours engaged with the material.
The problem with the Tabletop Exercise was that it was too static, and the
AND
focused on specific legal issues, even as it controlled for external chaos.
The opportunity to provide a more full experience for the students came with the creation of first a one-day, and then a multi-day simulation. The course design and simulation continues to evolve. It offers a model for achieving the pedagogical goals outlined above, in the process developing a rigorous training ground for the next generation of national security lawyers.166
A. Course Design
The central idea in structuring the NSL Sim 2.0 course was to bridge
AND
and legal education) and flexible (responsive to student input and decisionmaking).
Perhaps the most significant weakness in the use of any constructed universe is the problem
AND
student decisions themselves must drive the evolution of events within the simulation.168
Additionally, while authenticity matters, it is worth noting that at some level the
AND
that would be much more difficult to do in a regular practice setting.
NSL Sim 2.0 takes as its starting point the national security pedagogical goals discussed above. It works backwards to then engineer a classroom, cyber, and physical/simulation experience to delve into each of these areas. As a substantive matter, the course focuses on the constitutional, statutory, and regulatory authorities in national security law, placing particular focus on the interstices between black letter law and areas where the field is either unsettled or in flux.
A key aspect of the course design is that it retains both the doctrinal and
AND
giving students the opportunity to develop depth and breadth prior to the exercise.
In order to capture problems related to adaptation and evolution, addressing goal ~1
AND
Law to build the cyber portal used for NSL Sim 2.0.
The twin goals of adaptation and evolution require that students be given a significant amount
AND
execution of the play, further developing their understanding of national security law.
Throughout the simulation, the Control Team is constantly reacting to student choices. When unexpected decisions are made, professors may choose to pursue the evolution of the story to accomplish the pedagogical aims, or they may choose to cut off play in that area (there are various devices for doing so, such as denying requests, sending materials to labs to be analyzed, drawing the players back into the main storylines, and leaking information to the media).
A total immersion simulation involves a number of scenarios, as well as systemic noise
AND
but to embrace them as part of the challenge facing national security lawyers.
The simulation itself is problem-based, giving players agency in driving the evolution
AND
, generating in turn a set of new issues that must be addressed.
The written and oral components of the simulation conform to the fourth pedagogical goal –
AND
simulation – and to deliver a 90 second oral briefing after the session.
To replicate the high-stakes political environment at issue in goals (1)
AND
many different considerations that decisionmakers take into account in the national security domain.
Scenarios are selected with high consequence events in mind, to ensure that students recognize
AND
to emphasize the broader political context within which national security law is practiced.
Both anticipated and unanticipated decisions give rise to ethical questions and matters related to the
AND
exercise itself hitting the aim of the integration of the various pedagogical goals.
Finally, there are multiple layers of feedback that players receive prior to, during
AND
, while another Control Team member may reject a FISC application as insufficient.
The simulation goes beyond this, however, focusing on teaching students how to develop
AND
uncertainty, tension with colleagues, mistakes, and successes in the future.
B. Substantive Areas: Interstices and Threats
As a substantive matter, NSL Sim 2.0 is designed to take account
AND
weapons and pandemic disease also come within the doctrinal part of the course.
The simulation itself is based on five to six storylines reflecting the interstices between different areas of the law. The storylines are used to present a coherent, non-linear scenario that can adapt to student responses. Each scenario is mapped out in a three to seven page document, which is then checked with scientists, government officials, and area experts for consistency with how the scenario would likely unfold in real life.
For the biological weapons and pandemic disease emphasis, for example, one narrative might
AND
through press releases, weather updates, private communications, and the like.
The five to six storylines, prepared by the Control Team in consultation with experts
AND
, giving the Control Team a birds-eye view of the progression.
C. How It Works
As for the nuts and bolts of the simulation itself, it traditionally begins outside of class, in the evening, on the grounds that national security crises often occur at inconvenient times and may well involve limited sleep and competing demands.171 Typically, a phone call from a Control Team member posing in a role integral to one of the main storylines, initiates play.
Students at this point have been assigned dedicated simulation email addresses and provided access to
AND
relevant student teams. The Control Team has access to the complete site.
For the next two (or three) days, outside of student initiatives (
AND
, or technology concerns, while setting the stage for the breaking crisis.
The third (or fourth) day of play takes place entirely at Georgetown Law
AND
releases. Students use their own laptop computers for team decisions and communication.
As the storylines unfold, the Control Team takes on a variety of roles,
AND
the simulation unfolded, and how the students performed in their various capacities.
At the end of the day, the exercise terminates and an immediate hotwash is held, in which players are first debriefed on what occurred during the simulation. Because of the players’ divergent experiences and the different roles assigned to them, the students at this point are often unaware of the complete picture. The judges and formal observers then offer reflections on the simulation and determine which teams performed most effectively.
Over the next few classes, more details about the simulation emerge, as students
AND
opportunities for learning in the future. The course then formally ends.172
Learning, however, continues beyond the temporal confines of the semester. Students who
AND
concerns. And it builds a strong community of individuals with common interests.
CONCLUSION
The legal academy has, of late, been swept up in concern about the
AND
both the expression of government authority and the effort to limit the same.
The one-size fits all approach currently dominating the conversation in legal education,
AND
greater nuance in the discussion of the adequacy of the current pedagogical approach.
With this approach in mind, I have here suggested six pedagogical goals for national
AND
to ensure that they will be most effective when they enter the field.
The problem with the current structures in legal education is that they fall short,
AND
in other areas of experiential education, such as clinics and moot court.
It is in an effort to address these concerns that I developed the simulation model
AND
undoubtedly necessary, it suggests one potential direction for the years to come.

Specifically true in the context of contemporary detention law

Marguiles 11, Professor of Law
~February 9, 2011, Peter Margulies is Professor of Law, Roger Williams University., "The Ivory Tower at Ground Zero: Conflict and Convergence in Legal Education’s Responses to Terrorism"Journal of Legal Education, Vol. 60, p. 373, 2011, Roger Williams Univ. Legal Studies Paper No. 100~

If timidity in the face of government overreaching is the academy’s overarching historical narrative,
AND
Students need more guidance on what to look for when structure shapes substance. 

The plan creates unique pedagogical benefits by forcing us to build expertise on the details of national security policy, enabling change

Laura K. Donohue, Associate Professor of Law, Georgetown Law, 4/11/13, National Security Law Pedagogy and the Role of Simulations, http://jnslp.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/National-Security-Law-Pedagogy-and-the-Role-of-Simulations.pdf

2. Factual Chaos and Uncertainty
One of the most important skills for students going into national security law is the
AND
beginning, how the legal analysis might shift if the factual basis alters.
a. Chaos. Concern about information overload in the national security environment is not
AND
sources of information – not least in the online world – is staggering.
Added to this is the rapid expansion in national security law itself: myriad new Executive Orders, Presidential Directives, institutions, programs, statutes, regulations, lawsuits, and judicial decisions mean that national security law itself is rapidly changing. Lawyers inside and outside of government must keep abreast of constantly evolving authorities.
The international arena too is in flux, as global entities, such as the
AND
information overload is the changing nature of what constitutes national security itself.133
In sum, the sheer amount of information the national security lawyer needs to assimilate
AND
i.e., a broadening of knowledge and a narrowing of focus.
A law school system built on the gradual and incremental advance of law, bolstered
AND
, while retaining the ability to focus on the immediate task at hand.
Staying ahead of the curve requires developing a sense of timing – when to respond to important legal and factual shifts – and identifying the best means of doing so. Again, this applies to government and non-government employees. How should students prioritize certain information and then act upon it? This, too, is an aspect of information overload.
b. Uncertainty. National security law proves an information-rich, factuallydriven environment. The ability to deal with such chaos may be hampered by gaps in the information available and the difficulty of engaging in complex fact-finding – a skill often under-taught in law school. Investigation of relevant information may need to reach far afield in order to generate careful legal analysis. Uncertainty here plays a key role.
In determining, for instance, the contours of quarantine authority, lawyers may need
AND
is learning to ask intelligent questions to generate the best legal analysis possible.
It may be the case that national security lawyers are not aware of the facts
AND
the facts change, provides for more robust consideration of critically important issues.
c. Creative Problem Solving. Part of dealing with factual uncertainty in a rapidly
AND
§ Marked 14:13 § and how to leverage each skill set.
This goal presents itself in the context of fact-finding, but it draws
AND
it must teach them how to swiftly and efficiently engage in these activities.
3. Critical Distance
As was recognized more than a century ago, analytical skills by themselves are insufficient training for individuals moving into the legal profession.135 Critical thinking provides the necessary distance from the law that is required in order to move the legal system forward. Critical thought, influenced by the Ancient Greek tradition, finds itself bound up in the Socratic method of dialogue that continues to define the legal academy. But it goes beyond such constructs as well.
Scholars and educators disagree, of course, on what exactly critical thinking entails.
AND
both the actual and potential constructs of law. It is inherently reflective.
For the purpose of practicing national security law, critical thought is paramount. This
AND
a direct impact on individual rights.137 Constitutional implications demand careful scrutiny.
Yet at the time of an attack, enormous pressure is on officials and legislators
AND
violence may be tolerated – a step no politician is willing to take.
Any new powers, introduced in the heat of the moment, may become a
AND
and to be able to think through them outside of the contemporary context.
There are many other reasons such critical analysis matters that reflect in other areas of
AND
provides the basis for advancing the human condition through reason and intellectual engagement.
Critical thought as used in practicing national security law may seem somewhat antithetical to the
AND
. Determining when and how to act in these circumstances requires critical distance.
4. Nontraditional Written and Oral Communication Skills
Law schools have long focused on written and oral communication skills that are central to
AND
meeting changed circumstances, and communications built on swiftly evolving and uncertain information.
For many of these types of communications speed may be of the essence – and
AND
, that cases take to evolve to address the myriad legal questions involved.
Facts on which the legal analysis rests, moreover, as discussed above, may not be known. This has substantive implications for written and oral communications. Tension between the level of legal analysis possible and the national security process itself may lead to a different norm than in other areas of the law. Chief Judge Baker explains,
If lawyers insist on knowing all the facts all the time, before they are willing to render advice, or, if they insist on preparing a written legal opinion in response to every question, then national security process would become dysfunctional. The delay alone would cause the policymaker to avoid, and perhaps evade, legal review.141
Simultaneously, lawyers cannot function without some opportunity to look carefully at the questions presented
AND
facts and conditions, the potential for nuance to be lost is considerable.
The political and historical overlay of national security law here matters. In some circumstances
AND
held accountable for what they say, and what they don’t say."143
Written and oral communication may occur at highly irregular moments – yet it is at
AND
types of written and oral communication as an ends in and of themselves.
5. Leadership, Integrity and Good Judgment
National security law often takes place in a high stakes environment. There is tremendous
AND
In this context, leadership, integrity, and good judgment stand paramount.
The types of powers at issue in national security law are among the most coercive
AND
and professional responsibility and the ability to retain good judgment in extraordinary circumstances.
Equally critical in the national security realm is the classified nature of so much of
AND
Executive Orders and two subsidiary orders have been issued in this realm.145
The sheer amount of information incorporated within the classification scheme is here relevant. While original classification authorities have steadily decreased since 1980, and the number of original classification decisions is beginning to fall, the numbers are still high: in fiscal year 2010, for instance, there were nearly 2,300 original classification authorities and almost 225,000 original classification decisions.146
The classification realm, moreover, in which national security lawyers are most active,
AND
programs, initiatives, facts, intelligence, and previously classified legal opinions.
The key issue here is that with so much of the essential information, decisionmaking, and executive branch jurisprudence necessarily secret, lawyers are limited in their opportunity for outside appraisal and review.
Even within the executive branch, stove-piping occurs. The use of secure
AND
the impact of legal advice rendered may be felt for years to come.
The problem extends beyond the executive branch. There are limited opportunities, for instance
AND
been asserted – even where the doctrine had not been formally invoked.149
In light of these pressures – the profound consequences of many national security decisions,
AND
to professional responsibility that will confront them in the course of their careers.
Good judgment and leadership similarly stand paramount. These skills, like many of those
AND
media, or by going to different branches of government for a solution.
6. Creating Opportunities for Learning
In addition to the above skills, national security lawyers must be able to engage
AND
their future success to give students the ability to create conditions of learning.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southern California Saiedian-Haas | Judge: McCleary, Susko, Warden

plan

The United States federal government should limit the war power authority of the president for self-defense targeted killings to outside an armed conflict.

drones adv

Adv 1—-drones

Conflation of self-defense and the laws of war disrupts effective TK

Geoffrey Corn, South Texas College of Law, Professor of Law and Presidential Research Professor, J.D., 10/22/11, Self-defense Targeting: Blurring the Line between the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1947838

At the core of the self-defense targeting theory is the assumption that the
AND
ad bellum legal basis for hostilities would be irrelevant to this determination.77
This compartmentalization lies at the core of the Geneva Convention lawtriggering equation.78 Adoption
AND
to neutralize the impact of ad bellum legality in law applicability analysis.81
This effort rapidly became the norm of international law.82 Armed conflict analysis simply
AND
as irrelevant when deciding what rules apply to regulate operational and tactical execution.
This aspect of ad bellum/in bello compartmentalization is not called into question by
AND
bellum principles indicates that these principles subsume in bello conflict regulation norms.91
There are two fundamental flaws with this conflation. First, by contradicting the traditional
AND
of these principles is distinct within each branch of the jus belli.94
Furthermore, because the scope of authority derived from jus ad bellum principles purportedly invoked
AND
these consequences and offers a more rational approach to counterterrorism conflict regulation.98

That makes future terrorist attacks inevitable

Geoffrey Corn, South Texas College of Law, 6/2/13, Corn Comments on the Costs of Shifting to a Pure Self-Defense Model, www.lawfareblog.com/2013/06/corn-comments-on-the-prospect-of-a-shift-to-a-pure-self-defense-model/

The President’s speech – like prior statements of other administration officials – certainly suggests that
AND
force) threat that will provide an analogous decisive effect in the future.
It strikes me (no pun intended) that arguments – or policy choices –
AND
, targeted efforts to dismantle specific networks of violent extremists that threaten America."
Relying exclusively on the inherent right of self-defense would, I suggest,
AND
not carried out a successful attack on our homeland since 9/11."
A key advantage of the armed conflict framework is that it provides the legal maneuver
AND
context of an existing armed conflict than in isolated self-defense actions.
It may, of course, be possible to adopt an interpretation of imminence expansive
AND
opposed to disable, terrorist threats, because of concerns of perceived overreach.
It may be that a shift to this use of force framework is not only
AND
administration is unlikely to be too quick to abandon reliance on the AUMF.

High risk of attacks – most qualified ev

Sara Carter 14, senior editor at The Blaze, Intel Chief Has a Warning About Al Qaeda Splinter Groups, January 30, http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/30/intel-chief-has-a-warning-about-al-qaeda-splinter-groups/

Director of National Intelligence James Clapper warned Wednesday that Al Qaeda is still as dangerous as it was in the past and the its use of splinter groups pose a significant danger to U.S. assets — both at home and overseas as their operations are difficult to detect and monitor.
Clapper, who spoke to the Senate Intelligence Committee, noted that terrorist organizations "have expressed interest in developing offensive cyber capabilities." He told lawmakers that they use educated recruits who employ "cyberspace for propaganda and influence operations, financial activities and personnel recruitment."
He noted that instability the Middle East and North Africa "has accelerated the decentralization of the movement, which is increasingly influenced by local and regional issues," but the "diffusion has led to the emergence of new power centers and an increase in threats by networks of like-minded extremists with allegiances to multiple groups."
"The potential of global events to instantaneously spark grievances around the world hinders advance warning, disruption and attribution of plots," he warned in the intelligence community’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment, where the intelligence community presents its analysis and assessment of threats to the U.S.
"Terrorist threats emanate from a diverse array of terrorist actors, ranging from formal groups to homegrown violent extremists (HVEs) and ad hoc, foreign-based actors," the report states. "The threat environment continues to transition to a more diverse array of actors, reinforcing the positive developments of previous years."
He said large scale Al Qaeda attacks have been significantly degraded but that the splinter groups still present direct threats to U.S. assets.
The report stated that "U.S.-based extremists will likely continue to pose the most frequent threat to the U.S. Homeland."
It noted the "tragic attack in Boston in April 2013? and said that indicates that insular ’Home Violent Extremists’ who act alone or in small groups and mask the extent of their ideological radicalization can represent challenging and lethal threats."
As for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), which operates from its safe haven in Yemen, "has attempted several times to attack the US Homeland. We judge that the group poses a significant threat and remains intent on targeting the United States and US interests overseas."
Although, core Al Qaeda had major setbacks "it probably hopes for a resurgence following the drawdown of US troops in Afghanistan in 2014."
The report noted that the U.S. faces an "enduring" and persistent threat to U.S. interests overseas from extremist groups looking to attack "US embassies, military facilities and individuals will be at particular risk in parts of South Asia, the Middle East and Africa."

Attacks will be nuclear

Bhattarai 2-6 (Keshav, writes for Eurasia Review. Earlier he worked as a columnist in an English language weekly from Nepal, 2/6/2014, "Living Under the Threat of Nuclear Terrorism", www.eurasiareview.com/06022014-living-threat-nuclear-terrorism/)

In a speech delivered at International Conference on Nuclear Security, Yukiya Amano – the Director General of International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in Vienna in last July remarked that there are "over a hundred incidents of thefts and other unauthorised activities involving nuclear and radioactive material are reported to the IAEA every year."

In his alarming speech, he warned the global community that terrorists and criminals were
AND
nuclear security system needs to be strengthened in order to counter that threat."
Graham Allison, the Director of Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at Harvard Kennedy School, has quoted US President Barrack Obama and his predecessor George W. Bush when they were asked "What is the single most serious threat to American national security?" Both replied – it was nuclear terrorism.
Similarly, when the only Defense Secretary serving both the Republican and Democrat Presidents – Robert M. Gates – was asked, "What keeps you awake at night?" Gates responded: "It’s the thought of a terrorist ending up with a weapon of mass destruction, especially nuclear." The list sharing such grave threat goes longer.
Obviously, the global leaders may have differences over the strategies to combat nuclear terrorism; but they all, unambiguously have admitted that – Nuclear terrorism remains one of the greatest threats to global peace and security.
Understandably, in both Nuclear Security Summit held in 2010 and in 2012, World leaders agreed on the prospects of nuclear terrorism. Therefore, in these two summits held in Washington and Seoul and in other similar events almost all participants have unanimously endorsed that the potential nuclear terrorism could change the geopolitics around the world with far-reaching implications for global security – from short-term to long-term.
While, launching Nuclear Threat Initiative (NTI) – Nuclear Materials Security Index (
AND
the most material; they will go where the material is most vulnerable.
Tanya Ogilvie-White and David Santoroi, in a January 2014 special report they
AND
a facility or on transportation, leading to a release of radioactive material.
Evidences and Ominous Possibilities
Ogilvie-White and Santoroi giving IAEA source have stated that only in 2012, 160 incidents involving the illegal trade and movement of nuclear or other radioactive material across national borders were recorded. Of those, 17 involved possession and related criminal activities, 24 involved theft or loss and 119 involved other unauthorized activities. Two incidents involved highly enriched uranium (HEU) in unauthorized activities and three others involved dangerous category of radioactive sources – two of which were thefts.
Since early 90s to 2012, there have been dozens of confirmed thefts or loss of weapons-usable nuclear material mostly from the countries of former Soviet Union and East European countries.
Some attempts were even made in Australia, France, and Germany. In June
AND
most stringent nuclear safety standards, research reactors are not immune from theft.
Kenneth C. Brill – former U.S. ambassador to the IAEA and
AND
In addition, they say there is a black market in such material.
The earliest evidence that shows Al Qaeda’s attempts to acquire uranium to use in a nuclear device was in late 1993. The efforts continued and in 1998, according to Allison, Osama bin Laden issued a statement on "The Nuclear Bomb of Islam," and declared, "It is the duty of Muslims to prepare as much force as possible to terrorize the enemies of God."
According to the New York Times the militants, in past had made several attacks on bases that "are believed to be involved in the country’s nuclear program".
Threat Zones for Nuclear Calamity
David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt in the New York Times (January 26,2014) has raised a critical issue that after American troops complete withdrawal from Afghanistan – Al Qaeda and its affiliates may create trouble in both Pakistan and Afghanistan and it would be most complicated issue for the United States to respond a looming nuclear crisis in the region.
Sanger and Schmitt have further stated that in recent years, Pakistan has accelerated its
AND
, American intelligence agencies have invested so heavily in monitoring the Pakistani arsenal.
With evidences and hard-facts, it cannot be rejected outright. For example
AND
installations; they destroyed one jet fighter, and killed several security personnel.
In October 2009, militants had even attempted the army headquarters of Pakistan located in the garrison city of Rawalpindi and controlled some parts of it.
Recently in January 20, while there were reports on the part of both Pak and Afghan governments that described their engagement with Taliban, the Pakistani Taliban made a bomb attack in a crowded market in Rawalpindi – near the army headquarter. Because of series of bomb blasts in Pakistan’s restive tribal region on the North East including Rawalpindi, Pakistan’s Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif cancelled his trip to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.
Besides, scientific research institutes, and research bodies located at universities and campuses are considered vulnerable to thefts of nuclear and radiological materials. Fissile materials in such bodies are relatively open to the public or have many users and visitors, ASPI says. Nuclear research laboratories located on university campuses and operated by students, are considerably less secure and much more exposed to theft.
Similarly, the saboteurs and terrorists can crash an airplane into a nuclear power station or use car bomb or truck bomb into a nuclear reactor or mount cyber attacks controlling the activities of those reactors similar to"STUXNET" that was launched against Iranian nuclear facility in Natanz. (For detail please read, "Cyber Weapons- Are They the Deadliest Means of Modern Warfare?" Eurasia Review on September 27, 2012.)
It is also feared that during political crisis – countries such as Pakistan or North
AND
effectively developed any effective mechanism to protect the world from any such disaster.
Understandably, nuclear technology is about 70 years old. No nation or a group
AND
hand of a terrorist is not an imagination – but a dire possibility.
But, Best Efforts can Bear Fruits
National and international watchdogs working for nuclear safety and security have expressed their concerns over series of threats as follows:
Any well-resourced non-state actors and terrorist organization with some secured area to develop nuclear facilities might steal or illicitly purchase weapon grade uranium or plutonium and use them to make an improvised nuclear bomb.
There are many non-state actors including terrorist organizations that are making hard attempts to obtain information, technology or expertise required to acquire or use nuclear materials for malicious purposes, or to disrupt information technology based control systems at nuclear facilities.
Mainly, nuclear weapons or weapon grade nuclear materials can be stolen from countries without effective layers of its physical and legal security, but no country has foolproof security- even the United States.
Terrorist organizations may find safe haven in states – with or without nuclear weapons, and lacking national capabilities to prevent, detect, respond, and prosecute illicit nuclear trafficking. Political instability and insurgency in nuclear power states may inspire terrorist organization seize those weapons.

Extinction

Hellman 8 (Martin E. Hellman, emeritus prof of engineering @ Stanford, "Risk Analysis of Nuclear Deterrence" SPRING 2008 THE BENT OF TAU BETA PI, http://www.nuclearrisk.org/paper.pdf)

The threat of nuclear terrorism looms much larger in the public’s mind than the threat
AND
assume that preventing World War III is a necessity—not an option. 

legal regimes adv

Adv 2—-legal regimes

The administration has asserted TK is legally justified under armed conflict AND self-defense authority

Naz K. Modirzadeh 14, Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security, Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War Governance, http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Modirzadeh-Final.pdf

As to the jus ad bellum, 124 the government based its authority to attack
AND
—of "elongated imminence" based on "battered spouse syndrome."133
• As to jus in bello rules applicable to the geographically unbounded NIAC against al
AND
under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or the War Crimes Act.135
• In February 2013, an unsigned and undated Department of Justice White Paper on
AND
Finally, it argues for territorially unbounded NIAC by way of analogy.139
Combined, this remarkably opaque collection of purported international legal bases for the CIA and
AND
of the government whose accountability to the rules of IHL is unclear.142
Whether or not it is meaningfully different, and whether or not Obama Administration officials
AND
under President Obama is far greater than anything carried out by his predecessor.
The Obama Administration’s policy shift occurs within an entirely different rhetorical environment and in a
AND
benefit of the doubt granted to this Administration’s approach to the conflict.144
In a strange coda to the arguments and positions taken by the government throughout these
AND
targets148 than to take them into U.S. custody.149  

That erodes international norm development for both humanitarian and human rights law

Laurie Blank, Director, International Humanitarian Law Clinic, Emory Law School, 2012, Targeted Strikes: The Consequences of Blurring the Armed Conflict and Self-Defense Justifications, http://www.wmitchell.edu/lawreview/Volume38/documents/11.BlankFINAL.pdf

As noted in the introduction to this article, maintaining the separation between and independence
AND
of international security, and to the regulation of the conduct of hostilities.
III. BLURRING THE LINES
The nature of the terrorist threat the United States and other states face does indeed
AND
individuals by blurring the lines between the key parameters of the two paradigms.
A. Location of Attacks: International Law and the Scope of the Battlefield
The distinct differences between the targeting regimes in armed conflict and in self-defense
AND
parameters of the zone of combat in the conflict with al Qaeda.70
Traditionally, the law of neutrality provided the guiding framework for the parameters of the
AND
the armed conflict directly to the territory of one or more belligerent parties.
The neutrality framework as a geographic parameter is left wanting in today’s conflicts with terrorist
AND
armies and their enemies or as police forces and their criminal adversaries.78
Simply locating terrorist groups and operatives does not therefore identify the parameters of the battlefield—the fact that the United States and other states use a combination of military operations and law enforcement measures to combat terrorism blurs the lines one might look for in defining the battlefield. In many situations, "the fight against transnational jihadi groups . . . largely takes place away from any recognizable battlefield."79
Second, a look at U.S. jurisprudence in the past and today
AND
our country must engage if our form of government is to survive.81
In each of those cases, the United States was a belligerent in an international
AND
both the difference in approach and the uncertainty involved in defining today’s conflicts.
The current U.S. approach of using both the armed conflict paradigm and
AND
and/or self-defense to cover all areas without further delineation.
Second, on a broader level of legal application and interpretation, the development of
AND
prove detrimental in the future when it seeks sharper delineations for other purposes.

The impact is unrestrained use of force in conflict

Naz K. Modirzadeh 14, Senior Fellow at Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security, Folk International Law: 9/11 Lawyering and the Transformation of the Law of Armed Conflict to Human Rights Policy and Human Rights Law to War Governance, http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Modirzadeh-Final.pdf

The central purpose of the convergence of IHL and IHRL is to increase the protection
AND
aggressive CIA drone program cite convergence as a basis for doing so.160
For the application of IHL, on the other hand, the dominant assumption of
AND
contributed to the blurring of the line between war and not-war.

That causes global war

Ryan Goodman, Anne and Joel Ehrenkranz Professor of Law, New York University School of Law, December 2009, CONTROLLING THE RECOURSE TO WAR BY MODIFYING JUS IN BELLO, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law / Volume 12

A substantial literature exists on the conflation of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. However, the consequences for the former side of the equation – the resort to war – is generally under-examined. Instead, academic commentary has focused on the effects of compliance with humanitarian rules in armed conflict and, in particular, the equality of application principle. In this section, I attempt to help correct that imbalance.
In the following analysis, I use the (admittedly provocative) short-hand labels of ’desirable’ and ’undesirable’ wars. The former consists of efforts that aim to promote the general welfare of foreign populations such as humanitarian interventions and, on some accounts, peacekeeping operations. The latter – undesirable wars – include conflicts that result from security spirals that serve neither state’s interest and also include predatory acts of aggression.
4.1.1 Decreased likelihood of ’desirable wars’
A central question in debates about humanitarian intervention is whether the international community should be
AND
short, all ’interventions to protect civilians from wholesale slaughter’ are affected.
Two developments render desirable interventions less likely. First, consider implications of the Kosovo
AND
one would most want to incentivize to initiate and participate in humanitarian interventions.
The second development shares many of these same consequences. Consider the implications of the
AND
disproportionately affect the very states that take international human rights obligations most seriously.
Notably, in these cases, the disincentives might weigh most heavily on third parties
AND
the international regime should prefer to be involved in these kinds of interventions.
The developments regulating jus ad bellum through jus in bello also threaten to make ’
AND
result from the pressures created by Type I erosions of the separation principle.
First, increasing the tax on humanitarian interventions (the Kosovo Commission/ICISS approach
AND
language (in resolutions and the like) espousing or emphasizing humanitarian objectives.
Second, the elevation of self-regarding – security and strategic – frameworks over
AND
international disputes exert significant influence on whether conflicts will eventually culminate in war.
Third, a large body of empirical research demonstrates that states will routinely engage in
AND
demands for increased bellicosity, unintended security spirals, and military violence.103
Importantly, these effects may result even if one is skeptical about the power of
AND
states entering into disastrous military campaigns that their leaders did not initially intend.

A strong, adaptive LOAC regime is key to regulate inevitable autonomous weapons – the impact is global war

Mark Gubrud 14, prof at UNC-Chapel Hill, was a research fellow at Princeton specializing in arms control, Stopping killer robots, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists January/February 2014 vol. 70 no.1 32-42

Since the first lethal drone strike in 2001, the US use of remotely operated
AND
is now the most dynamic and destabilizing component of the global arms race.
Drones and robots are enabled by embedded autonomous subsystems that keep engines in tune and antennas pointed at satellites, and some can navigate, walk, and maneuver in complex environments autonomously. But with few exceptions, the targeting and firing decisions of armed robotic systems remain tightly under the control of human operators. This may soon change.
Autonomous weapons are robotic systems that, once activated, can select and engage targets
AND
attack on an adversary’s strategic forces. Autonomous weapons may fight each other.
Just as the emergence of low-cost, high-performance information technology has been the most important driver of technological advance over the past half-century—including the revolution in military affairs already seen in the 1980s and displayed to the world during the 1991 Gulf War—so the emergence of artificial intelligence and autonomous robotics will likely be the most important development in both civilian and military technology to unfold over the next few decades.
Proponents of autonomous weapons argue that technology will gradually take over combat decision making:
AND
fast, and the factors involved are too complex for real human comprehension."
Almost nobody favors a future in which humans have lost control over war machines.
AND
would cheat on agreements. This is the ideology of any arms race.
Is autonomous warfare inevitable?
Challenging the assumption of the inevitability of autonomous weapons and building on the work of
AND
The issue has been placed firmly on the global public and diplomatic agenda.
Despite this impressive record of progress on an issue that was until recently virtually unknown
AND
, unrealized horror, one that some might hope will simply go away.
Unless there is a strong push from civil society and from governments that have decided
AND
assumption that autonomous weapons will be programmed by humans is ultimately in doubt.
Diplomats and public spokesmen may speak in one voice; warriors, engineers, and
AND
global arms race toward robotic arsenals that are increasingly out of human control.
Humanitarian law vs. killer robots
The public discussion launched by the Campaign to Stop Killer Robots has mostly centered on
AND
Rights Watch and International Human Rights Clinic at Harvard Law School, 2012).
The principle of distinction, as enshrined in Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions
AND
expected from the attack. This is known as the principle of proportionality.
"Losing Humanity" argues that technical limitations mean robots could not reliably distinguish civilians
AND
from now are unknown and highly controversial within both expert and lay communities.
While it may not satisfy the reified principle of distinction, proponents of autonomous weapons
AND
to persuade many people that their use in weapons is a net benefit.
Judgment of proportionality seems at first an even greater challenge, and some argue that
AND
this would be to degrade human judgment almost to the level of machines.
On the other hand, IBM’s Watson computer (Ferruci et al., 2010)
AND
decisions that most people would judge as reasonable, most of the time.
"Losing Humanity" also argues that robots, necessarily lacking emotion,2 would be unable to empathize and thus unable to accurately interpret human behavior or be affected by compassion. An important case of the latter is when soldiers refuse orders to put down rebellions. Robots would be ideal tools of repression and dictatorship.
If robot soldiers become available on the world market, it is likely that repressive
AND
hands of dictators, both by restricting their availability and stigmatizing their use.
Accountability is another much-discussed issue. Clearly, a robot cannot be held
AND
since a robot cannot be punished, it cannot be a legal combatant.
These are some of the issues most likely to be discussed within the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. However, US Defense Department policy (2012) preemptively addresses many of these issues by directing that "~a~utonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems shall be designed to allow commanders and operators to exercise appropriate levels of human judgment over the use of force."
Under the US policy, commanders and operators are responsible for using autonomous weapons in
AND
-approves the immediate development, acquisition, and use of such weapons.
Although the policy does not define "appropriate levels," it applies this rubric even
AND
it to individual states to determine what levels of human judgment are appropriate.
Demanding human control and responsibility
As diplomatic discussions about killer robot regulation get under way, a good deal of time is apt to be lost in confusion about terms, definitions, and scope. "Losing Humanity" seeks to ban "fully autonomous weapons," and Heyns’s report used the term "lethal autonomous robotics." The US policy directive speaks of "autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems," and the distinction between these is ambiguous (Gubrud, 2013). The Geneva mandate is to discuss "lethal autonomous weapon systems."
Substantive questions include whether non-lethal weapons and those that target only matériel are within the scope of discussion. Legacy weapons such as simple mines may be regarded as autonomous, or distinguished as merely automatic, on grounds that their behavior is fully predictable by designers.3 Human-supervised autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems, as defined by the United States, raise issues that, like fractal shapes, appear more complex the more closely they are examined.
Instead of arguing about how to define what weapons should be banned, it may
AND
and a human has determined that it is an appropriate and legal target.
A second principle is that a human commander must be responsible and accountable for the decision, and if the commander acts through another person who operates a weapon system, that person must be responsible and accountable for maintaining control of the system. "Responsible" refers here to a moral and legal obligation, and "accountable" refers to a formal system for accounting of actions. Both elements are essential to the approach.
Responsibility implies that commanders and operators may not blame inadequacies of technological systems for any
AND
to prevent unintended engagements, the operator must refuse to operate the system.
Accountability can be demonstrated by states that comply with this principle. They need only maintain records showing that each engagement was properly authorized and executed. If a violation is alleged, selected records can be unsealed in a closed inquiry conducted by an international body (Gubrud and Altmann, 2013).4
This framing, which focuses on human control and responsibility for the decision to use violent force, is both conceptually simple and morally compelling. What remains then is to set standards for adequate information to be presented to commanders, and to require positive action by operators of a weapon system. Those standards should also address any circumstances under which other parties—designers and manufacturers, for instance—might be held responsible for an unintended engagement.
There is at least one exceptional circumstance in which human control may be applied less
AND
be delayed as long as possible to allow time for an override decision.
The strategic need for robot arms control
Principles of humanity may be the strongest foundation for an effective ban of autonomous weapons, but they are not necessarily the most compelling reason why a ban must be sought. The perceived military advantages of autonomy are so great that major powers are likely to strongly resist prohibition, but by the same token, autonomous weapons pose a severe threat to global peace and security.
Although humans have (for now) superior capabilities for perception in complex environments and
AND
expensive, and their replacement by robots is expected to yield cost savings.
While today’s relatively sparse use of drones, in undefended airspace, to target irregular
AND
the use of sea-based drones to attack targets inland as well.
In a cold war, small robots could be used for covert infiltration, surveillance
AND
nuclear-capable and potentially unmanned, which would almost certainly mean autonomous.
There can be no real game-changers in the nuclear stalemate. Yet the
AND
race would be global in scope, as the drone race already is.
Since robots are regarded as expendable, they may be risked in provocative adventures. Recently, China has warned that if Japan makes good on threats to shoot down Chinese drones that approach disputed islands, it could be regarded as an act of war. Similarly, forward-basing of missile interceptors (Lewis and Postol, 2010) or other strategic weapons on unmanned platforms would risk misinterpretation as a signal of imminent attack, and could invite preemption.
Engineering the stability of a robot confrontation would be a wickedly hard problem even for
AND
speed, the potential for events to spiral out of control is obvious.
The way out
Given the military significance of autonomous weapons, substantial pressure from civil society will be needed before the major powers will seriously consider accepting hard limits, let alone prohibition. The goal is as radical as, and no less necessary than, the control and abolition of nuclear weapons.
The principle of humanity is an old concept in the law of war. It
AND
grounds and out of concern for the dangers of a new arms race.
In the diplomatic discussions now under way, opponents of autonomous weapons should emphasize a
AND
has legal force in anticipation of an explicit law (Meron, 2000).
Autonomous weapons are a threat to global peace and therefore a matter of concern under
AND
present major-power governments with an irresistible demand: Stop killer robots.

Plan key to prevent China drone war – causes miscalculation

Kreps and Zenko 14 (SARAH KREPS is Stanton Nuclear Security Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and Assistant Professor of Government at Cornell University. MICAH ZENKO is Douglas Dillon Fellow in the Center for Preventive Action at the Council on Foreign Relations., March/April, "The Next Drone Wars", www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/140746/sarah-kreps-and-micah-zenko/the-next-drone-wars)

Nearly seven decades later, Arnold’s prophecy is slowly being realized: armed drones are
AND
they could still be used in ways that are highly destabilizing and deadly.
Countries will not be deterred from launching drone attacks simply because an adversary has drones
AND
S. interests, whether by provoking regional adversaries or targeting domestic enemies.
Fortunately for the United States, it still has the ability to shape how and whether the use of drones will spread and whether these threatening scenarios will come to pass. Countries adopt new military capabilities based on how other states have — or have not — already used them and on their perceived effectiveness. Therefore, as other countries develop their own drone technology, they could follow Washington’s lead.
In 2004, only 41 states had drones of any kind. By 2011, that number had reached 76.
John Brennan, director of the CIA and chief architect of the Obama administration’s drone
AND
coalition to agree on a credible arrangement governing the use of armed drones.
Such an arrangement would not necessarily require new treaties or international laws; rather,
AND
emerging drone powers would adopt policies that reduce the prospects for violent confrontations.
MOVING TARGET
In a speech last November, Thomas Lawson, Canada’s chief of the defense staff
AND
than with piloted aircraft, civilian officials are more willing to authorize them.
Compare the relative caution with which the Clinton administration approached al Qaeda with the steady
AND
pharmaceutical factory in Sudan (none of which killed any al Qaeda leaders).
Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, by contrast, have shown far
AND
terrorists abroad, unless the target was a U.S. citizen.
RISE OF THE MACHINES
Understanding just how many countries currently maintain their own drones is difficult, since these programs are invariably shrouded in secrecy and misinformation. Some countries hide the existence of their drones in order to maintain a surprise capability; others, hoping to raise their prestige, boast about drones that are not yet operational. To date, only the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom are believed to have used armed drones.
The U.S. drone program has the greatest reach. Since 2008,
AND
Somalia, and at least one (in 2006) in the Philippines.
For too long, using drones has seemed to be an easy way to satisfy the desire for absolute security.
Israel and the United Kingdom, meanwhile, have also deployed armed drones, although
AND
Sinai Peninsula in August 2013, with the consent of the Egyptian government.
Although the number of drone-equipped states is currently small, it will grow
AND
2,000 kilometers, which would cover much of the Middle East.
Still other countries are catching up. India’s government has reported that it will soon
AND
disputed islands known as the Senkaku in Japan and the Diaoyu in China.
LIMITED ENGAGEMENT
Given the intrinsic advantages of armed drones over conventional airpower, it is surprising that
AND
, however, the availability of drones could push its leaders to escalate.
Drone technology is also more complex than it may appear. There is a qualitative
AND
complex systems engineering — all assets presently beyond the reach of most states.
It is no coincidence that the countries that possess advanced drones have also already mastered
AND
made Reaper, which France has been using for reconnaissance missions in Mali.
A third explanation for the slow spread of drones is diplomatic. Conducting drone strikes
AND
years, but it will take other countries decades to have that capability.
Domestic opposition to the development or use of drones creates additional problems in other states
AND
German critics contend, could increase the prospects of military interventions more generally.
Defense budgets are a final factor. The worldwide civilian and military drone market,
AND
most states will not reallocate precious defense dollars to unmanned systems anytime soon.
HOSTILE ACTS
These obstacles will likely keep the number of drone powers low, but even a
AND
use drones in the future only in the way the United States has.
The mere possession of drones will not make traditional interstate warfare, which is already
AND
, especially in disputed areas where the slightest provocation could lead to strife.
In such settings, drones could encourage countries to act in ways that they might
AND
S. military assets to protect the drones and the information they collect.
The fact that drones heighten the potential for miscalculation and military escalation is especially worrisome
AND
they would likely do more aggressively than if they were deploying piloted aircraft.

That’s goes nuclear

Goldstein 13
AVERY GOLDSTEIN is David M. Knott Professor of Global Politics and International Relations and Director of the Center for the Study of Contemporary China at the University of Pennsylvania, Foreign Affairs, September/October 2013, "China’s Real and Present Danger", http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/139651/avery-goldstein/chinas-real-and-present-danger

Washington has also been vague about what it sees as its vital interests in the
AND
that it believes are safe but that turn out to be unexpectedly provocative.
MORE DANGEROUS THAN THE COLD WAR?
Uncertainty about what could lead either Beijing or Washington to risk war makes a crisis
AND
rules of the road. But today’s environment might be even more dangerous.
The balance of nuclear and conventional military power between China and the United States,
AND
United States would be the best way to get it to back off.
The fact that both sides have nuclear arsenals would help keep the situation in check
AND
guarantee that brinkmanship would end before it led to an unanticipated nuclear catastrophe.
China, moreover, apparently believes that nuclear deterrence opens the door to the safe
AND
ensued, China might also be less cautious about firing the first shot.
Such beliefs are particularly worrisome given recent developments in technology that have dramatically improved the
AND
be confident about the durability of the systems managing its advanced conventional weapons.
Under such circumstances, both Beijing and Washington would have incentives to initiate an attack
AND
, since it would be able to cope with Chinese retaliation in kind.

solvency

Solvency

Only restricting self-defense prevents collapse of norms

Beau Barnes, J.D., Boston University School of Law, Spring 2012, REAUTHORIZING THE "WAR ON TERROR": THE LEGAL AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF THE AUMF’S COMING OBSOLESCENCE, https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DOCLIBS/MILITARYLAWREVIEW.NSF/20a66345129fe3d885256e5b00571830/b7396120928e9d5e85257a700042abb5/24FILE/By20Beau20D.20Barnes.pdf

Therefore, the more likely result is that the Executive Branch, grappling with the
AND
prove legally fragile, destabilizing to the international political order, or both.

1. Effect on Domestic Law and Policy
   Congress’s failure to reauthorize military force would lead to bad domestic law and even worse
   AND
   be to continue to rely on the September 18, 2001, AUMF.
   Second, basing U.S. counterterrorism efforts on the President’s constitutional authority as
   AND
   would lack stability—confounding cooperation with allies and hindering negotiations with adversaries.
   There are, of course, many situations where the president’s position as Commander in
   AND
   conflict than the public might otherwise ~be~ willing to support."140
   In a world without a valid AUMF, the United States could base its continued
   AND
   problems."141 Only then can the President’s efforts be sustained and legitimate.
   2. Effect on the International Law of Self-Defense
   A failure to reauthorize military force would lead to significant negative consequences on the international
   AND
   allowing the executive to rely on a self-defense authorization alone.144
   This approach also would inevitably lead to dangerous "slippery slopes." Once the President
   AND
   international law of self defense would likely lead to precisely such a result.
   The slippery slope problem, however, is not just limited to the United States’s
   AND
   to kill people anywhere, anytime, the result would be chaos."148
   Encouraging the proliferation of an expansive law of international self-defense would not only
   AND
   and rooting~ counterterrorism efforts within a more durable, legal foundation."152
   Widely accepted legal arguments also facilitate cooperation from U.S. allies, especially
   AND
   , but facilitating that rationale’s destabilizing adoption by nations around the world.158

Congress is key

Mark David Maxwell, Colonel, Judge Advocate with the U.S. Army, Winter 2012, TARGETED KILLING, THE LAW, AND TERRORISTS, Joint Force Quarterly, http://www.ndu.edu/press/targeted-killing.html

In the wake of the attacks by al Qaeda on September 11, 2001,
AND
not wise for the long-term health of the rule of law.
This article traces the history of targeted killing from a U.S. perspective
AND
Constitution demands nothing less, but thus far, Congress’s silence is deafening.
History of Targeted Killing During the Cold War, the United States used covert operations
AND
is declared hostile; the enemy is now targetable. Anticipatory Self-defense
This paradigm shift is novel for the United States. The President’s authority to order
AND
, but now they are hampering its desires to target and kill terrorists.
Skeptics of targeted killing admit that "~t~he decision to target specific individuals
AND
even some foreign governments40 is where these targeted killings can be conducted.41
According to the U.S. critics, if armed conflict between the states
AND
negative: the strike constituted "a clear case of extrajudicial killing."42
The Obama administration, like its predecessor, disagrees. Its legal justification for targeted
AND
, must be limited by that necessity and kept clearly within it."44
A state can act under the guise of anticipatory self-defense. This truism
AND
stated legal authority is self-defense? There is no clear answer.
The administration is blurring the contours of the right of the state to act in Yemen under self-defense and the law of war protections afforded its soldiers when so acting. Therefore, what protections do U.S. Airmen enjoy when operating the drone that killed an individual in Yemen, Somalia, or Libya?
If they are indicted by a Spanish court for murder, what is the defense
AND
international legal norms intersect and potentially conflict with measures stemming from domestic law.

But there’s no uniqueness for their DA’s – TK operational policy is already restricted more than the plan mandates

Robert Chesney 14, law prof at UT, "Postwar", http://harvardnsj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Chesney-Final.pdf

Would shifting to a postwar framework impact the status quo regarding the use of lethal force more so than it does detention? Surprisingly, no.
That some amount of targeting authority would remain even under the postwar rubric is not
AND
be eliminated or at least curtailed substantially as compared to the status quo.
A. Policy Constraints on Attacks Outside the Hot Battlefield
It is tempting to assume that the answer must be yes, that the postwar
AND
it is the same framework that applies already as a matter of policy.

There’s also link uq – Obama’s openly called for restrictions on authority

Christopher Preble 13, vice president for Defense and Foreign Policy Studies at the Cato Institute, How to End the War on Terrorism Properly, June 10, http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/how-end-war-terrorism-properly?utm_source=Cato+Institute+Emails26utm_campaign=d7856100b8-Cato_Today26utm_medium=email26utm_term=0_395878584c-d7856100b8-14171163426mc_cid=d7856100b826mc_eid=719812f23e

In his speech on counterterrorism last month, President Barack Obama said something both profound and overdue — the war underway since 2001 should end, not just factually but also legally. Outlining his views, the president said he wanted to "refine, and ultimately repeal," the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), the main legislative vehicle governing U.S. counterterrorism operations around the world. He also pledged not to sign laws designed to expand this mandate further.
"The most successful counterterrorism operations involve timely intelligence collection and analysis, not open-ended military operations involving large deployments of U.S. troops."
But to make that goal a concrete reality, the president should have called for
AND
and ask for specific, limited authorities tailored to address the future challenge.

Executive "clarification" fails

Laurie Blank, Emory International Humanitarian Law Clinic Director, Professor, 10/10/13, "Raid Watching" and Trying to Discern Law from Policy, today.law.utah.edu/projects/raid-watching-and-trying-to-discern-law-from-policy/

Trying to identify and understand the legal framework the United States believes is applicable to
AND
where does the United States believe its authority derived from this conflict reaches?
On Saturday, U.S. Special Forces came ashore in Somalia and engaged
AND
Shabaab is a party to that armed conflict or another independent armed conflict?
The reality, however, is that this latest counterterrorism operation highlights once again the conflation of law and policy that exemplifies the entire discourse about the United States conflict with al Qaeda and other U.S. counterterrorism operations as well.  And that using policy to discern law is a highly risky venture.
The remarkable series of public speeches by top Obama Administration legal advisors and national security
AND
of the conflation of law and policy and the consequences of that conflation.
Policy and strategic considerations are without a doubt an essential component of understanding contemporary military operations and the application of international law.  However, it is equally important to distinguish between law and policy, and to recognize when one is driving analysis versus the other.
The law regarding the use of force against an individual or group outside the borders
AND
force is necessary and proportionate to repel or deter the attack or threat.
The United States has consistently blurred these two legal justifications for the use of force
AND
the perspective of careful legal analysis, however, it can prove problematic.
In effect, it is U.S. policy to eliminate "bad guys
AND
raids, capture — each situation involves its own tactical plans and twists.
But do any of these specific tactical choices tell us anything in particular about whether
AND
and used deadly force in the process of trying to effectuate that capture.
Ultimately, however, the only certain information is that the United States viewed this
AND
particular military mission at hand, the operational imperatives and national command policy.
The fact that the operation may have had capture as its goal, if feasible
AND
force, but that use of force may nonetheless be robust when necessary.
"Raid-watching" — trying to predict the applicable legal framework from reports
AND
policy for legal analysis ultimately substitutes policy’s flexibility for the law’s normative foundations.

States choose to follow LOAC based on a system of incentives – studies prove that solves violence

Prorock and Appel ’13 (Alyssa, and Benjamin, Department of Political Science, Michigan State University, "Compliance with International Humanitarian Law: Democratic Third Parties and Civilian Targeting in Interstate War," Journal of Conflict Resolution 00(0) 1-28) 

Coercion is a strategy of statecraft involving the threat or use of positive inducements and
AND
rights records as a form of coercive punishment (Lebovic and Voeten 2009).
We focus theoretically and empirically on the expectation of coercion. As Thompson (2009
AND
when that expectation will alter payoffs sufficiently to induce compliance with the law.
While a growing body of literature recognizes that international coercion can induce compliance and contribute
AND
threats and a third party’s ability to induce compliance through this enforcement mechanism.
While acknowledging this critique of coercion, we argue that it can act as an
AND
., Most and Starr 1989; Siverson and Starr 1990; Starr 1978).
Willingness: Clarity, Democracy, and the Salience of International Humanitarian Law
Enforcement through the coercion mechanism is only likely when at least one third-party state has a substantial enough interest in another party’s compliance that it is willing to act (Von Stein 2010). Third-party willingness, in turn, depends upon two conditions: (1) legal principles must be clearly defined, making violations easily identifiable and (2) third parties must regard the legal obligation as highly salient.
First, scholars have long recognized that there is significant variation in the precision and
AND
punishment and sanctions for violating the law when legal obligations are clearly defined.
While some bodies of law are imprecise, international humanitarian law establishes a comprehensive code of conduct regarding the intentional targeting of noncombatants during war (e.g., Murphy 2006; Shaw 2003). Starting with the 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions and continuing through the 1949 Geneva Convention (Protocol IV), the law clearly prohibits the intentional targeting of noncombatants in war.
This clarity allows international humanitarian law to serve as a "bright line" that
AND
law and greater punishment for violating it when the clarity condition is met.

The best scholarship validates our theory of arms races – unless norms precede formal agreements, they’ll be ineffective

Robert Farley 11, assistant professor at the Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce at the University of Kentucky, Over the Horizon: U.S. Drone Use Sets Global Precedent, October 12, http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/10311/over-the-horizon-u-s-drone-use-sets-global-precedent

Is the world about to see a "drone race" among the United States
AND
campaign, some other country would have taken the lead in drone capabilities.
So which is it? Has the United States sparked a drone race, or
AND
of what lies ahead as well as a strategy for regulating drone warfare.
States run arms races for a variety of reasons. The best-known reason
AND
social and strategic, and they depend on the behavior of other countries.
Improvements in technology do not make the procurement of any given weapon necessary; rather
AND
would not have had in absence of the U.S. example.
What is undeniable, however, is that we face a drone race, which
AND
is likely, it will come through treaties limiting how drones are used.
Such a treaty would require either deep concern on the part of the major powers
AND
of a more general effort to regulate the operation of robots in war.
However, even in the unlikely event of global public outrage, any serious effort
AND
policymakers should perhaps devote a touch more attention to the precedent they’re setting.

War powers authority refers to the President’s authority to execute warfighting operations—that includes self-defense justifications

Manget, law professor at Florida State and formerly in the Office of the General Counsel at the CIA, No Date
(Fred, "Presidential War Powers," http://media.nara.gov/dc-metro/rg-263/6922330/Box-10-114-7/263-a1-27-box-10-114-7.pdf)

The President has constitutional authority to order defensive military action in response to aggression without
AND
acts in defense of the nation, he acts under war powers authority.
3. Protection of Life and Property
The President also has the power to order military intervention in foreign countries to protect
AND
Navy and Air Force aircraft bombed the modern Barbary Coast nation of Libya.
4. Collective Security
The President may also authorize military operations without prior congressional approval pursuant to collective security agreements such as NA TO or OAS treaties. Unilaterial presidential action under these agreements may be justified as necessary for the protection of national security even though hostilities occur overseas and involve allies.36
5. National Defense Power
The President’s war powers authority is actually a national defense power that exists at all
AND
the national defense and the prosecution of national objectives through military means."39
Thus, the Executive Branch ’s constitutional war powers authority does not spring into existence when Congress declares war, nor is it dependent on there being hostilities. It empowers the President to prepare for war as well as wage it, in the broadest sense. It operates at all times.
6. Role of the Military
The fundamental function of the armed forces is to fight or to be ready to
AND
type of hostility are based on constitutional war powers authority of the President.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southern California Saiedian-Haas | Judge: McCleary, Susko, Warden

2AC

No impact uq – no strikes means intel’s irrelevant

NSA program has no national security impact

Peter Bergen, New America Foundation National Security Fellow, Jan 2014, Do NSA’s Bulk Surveillance Programs Stop Terrorists?, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Bergen_NAF_NSA-Surveillance_1.pdf

However, our review of the government’s claims about the role that NSA "bulk" surveillance of phone and email communications records has had in keeping the United States safe from terrorism shows that these claims are overblown and even misleading.* An in-depth analysis of 225 individuals recruited by al-Qaeda or a like-minded group or inspired by al-Qaeda’s ideology, and charged in the United States with an act of terrorism since 9/11, demonstrates that traditional investigative methods, such as the use of informants, tips from local communities, and targeted intelligence operations, provided the initial impetus for investigations in the majority of cases, while the contribution of NSA’s bulk surveillance programs to these cases was minimal. Indeed, the controversial bulk collection of American telephone metadata, which includes the telephone numbers that originate and receive calls, as well as the time and date of those calls but not their content, under Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, appears to have played an identifiable role in initiating, at most, 1.8 percent of these cases. NSA programs involving the surveillance of non-U.S. persons outside of the United States under Section 702 of the FISA Amendments Act played a role in 4.4 percent of the terrorism cases we examined, and NSA surveillance under an unidentified authority played a role in 1.3 percent of the cases we examined. Regular FISA warrants not issued in connection with Section 215 or Section 702, which are the traditional means for investigating foreign persons, were used in at least 48 (21 percent) of the cases we looked at, although it’s unclear whether these warrants played an initiating role or were used at a later point in the investigation. (Click on the link to go to a database of all 225 individuals, complete with additional details about them and the government’s investigations of these cases: http://natsec.newamerica.net/nsa/analysis). Surveillance of American phone metadata has had no discernible impact on preventing acts of terrorism and only the most marginal of impacts on preventing terrorist- related activity, such as fundraising for a terrorist group. Furthermore, our examination of the role of the database of U.S. citizens’ telephone metadata in the single plot the government uses to justify the importance of the program – that of Basaaly Moalin, a San Diego cabdriver who in 2007 and 2008 provided 248,500 to al-Shabaab, al-Qaeda’s affiliate in Somalia – calls into question the necessity of the Section 215 bulk collection program.5 According to the government, the database of American phone metadata allows intelligence authorities to quickly circumvent the traditional burden of proof associated with criminal warrants, thus allowing them to "connect the dots" faster and prevent future 9/11-scale attacks. Yet in the Moalin case, after using the NSA’s phone database to link a number in Somalia to Moalin, the FBI waited two months to begin an investigation and wiretap his phone. Although it’s unclear why there was a delay between the NSA tip and the FBI wiretapping, court documents show there was a two-month period in which the FBI was not monitoring Moalin’s calls, despite official statements that the bureau had Moalin’s phone number and had identified him.6,7 This undercuts the government’s theory that the database of Americans’ telephone metadata is necessary to expedite the investigative process, since it clearly didn’t expedite the process in the single case the government uses to extol its virtues. Additionally, a careful review of three of the key terrorism cases the government has cited to defend NSA bulk surveillance programs reveals that government officials have exaggerated the role of the NSA in the cases against David Coleman Headley and Najibullah Zazi, and the significance of the threat posed by a notional plot to bomb the New York Stock Exchange.

Obama’s already come out for the plan – he couldn’t flip flop

No political capital or inter-branch coop—fights ongoing

Charlie Cook, National Journal, 3/17/14, 6 Ways Washington Will Stay the Same, www.nationaljournal.com/off-to-the-races/6-ways-washington-will-stay-the-same-20140317

3. President Obama’s job-approval ratings are very likely to remain pretty much
AND
his political capital will remain pretty low for the duration of his presidency.
4. Obama’s relations with Congress will remain poor for the duration of his time
AND
see how any of that changes either before or after the 2014 midterms.
5. To the extent that Congress and the president are unable to agree on much legislatively, the Obama administration will try as much as possible to affect policy through regulatory and administrative means. This in turn is likely to set up even more fights with Congress.

PC theory is no longer true

Ryan Lizza, The New Yorker’s Washington correspondent, 1/30 ~Obama Breaks Up with Congress," http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/comment/2014/01/the-state-of-the-union-or-obama-breaks-up-with-congress.html~~

Several generations of political leaders and journalists have been taught to believe that, in
AND
some point this year he will need to rekindle his relationship with Congress.

Uniqueness overwhelms—its just a question of the specifics, but all of the versions end the metadata program

Ellen Nakashima, 3/25/14, Emerging political consensus supports end to NSA collection of Americans’s phone records, www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/emerging-political-consensus-supports-end-to-nsa-collection-of-americanss-phone-records/2014/03/25/c251b39c-b42a-11e3-8cb6-284052554d74_story.html

President Obama said Tuesday that the intelligence community has given him a plan to get
AND
make broader fixes. The bottom line: Change is in the air.

Congress will backdoor reauthorize indefinitely

Hayes Brown, Think Progress, 3/27/14, Privacy Advocates Skeptical Of Obama’s New NSA Reforms, thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/27/3419777/nsa-reform-schiff/

With the glacial pace at which Congress has operated lately, there’s reason to be
AND
the renewals of the program in its current state could continue on indefinitely.

Obama solves

Ed Morrissey, 3/25/14, Obama to end NSA telephone-records collection program, hotair.com/archives/2014/03/25/obama-to-end-nsa-telephone-records-collection-program/

In other words, this doesn’t require an act of Congress to end, especially
AND
, it would be no impediment to stopping the massive collection now either.

Only the Leahy bill solves surveillance overreach

Julian Sanchez, Daily Beast, 3/25/14, The Best NSA Fix Comes From the Patriot Act’s Author, www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/25/the-best-nsa-fix-comes-from-the-patriot-act-s-author.html

Take a victory lap, Edward Snowden. Last summer, the White House and
AND
—with no Snowden left on the inside to warn us about it.

Obama’s NSA proposal triggers it

Paul Waldman, WaPo, 3/25/14,  NSA may give up on phone records. But they’re still watching., www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/03/25/nsa-may-give-up-on-phone-records-but-theyre-still-watching/

At a presser today in the Netherlands, President Obama confirmed reports that his administration
AND
with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.

CIA larger issue than the plan—it’ll keep escalating

Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic, 3/24/14, False Equivalence and the Feud Between the CIA and the Senate, www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/false-equivalence-and-the-feud-between-the-cia-and-the-senate/284596/

But now that the Justice Department is involved in the dispute between Feinstein’s Intelligence Committee
AND
. It is troubling, but unsurprising, that intelligence veterans think otherwise.

Ukraine overshadows everything

Justin Sink, the Hill, 3/20/14, Obama’s bully pulpit struggle, thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/russia/201333-obamas-bully-pulpit-struggle

President Obama’s reliance on the bully pulpit to bump up ObamaCare’s enrollment and hammer Republicans in an election year is facing a serious challenge with the crisis in Ukraine.
The worst U.S.-Russia crisis since the Cold War is taking up a significant amount of the administration’s oxygen, complicating the president’s efforts to get his message out.
On Thursday, Obama sought to put the spotlight on higher pay for women, an election-year issue Democrats believe they can turn to their advantage in November.
But his event in Orlando was largely overshadowed by his announcement earlier in the day of new sanctions on Moscow, part of a showdown with Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The administration isn’t giving up its efforts even as Obama seeks to contain Russia, and the cross-currents have led to some odd juxtapositions.
On Thursday, the day began with the release of a video of Obama joking with talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres over her selfie at the Oscars, which broke Obama’s record for re-tweets. Obama’s appearance on "Ellen" was meant to promote the healthcare law.
Hours later, a somber Obama announced new sanctions on Russia on the White House South Lawn, with the Marine One helicopter as his background shot.
As Obama was speaking, ESPN Radio’s "The Herd with Colin Cowherd" was airing a previously taped interview with the president in which he dug into his March Madness bracket.
In the interview, Obama also defended his appearance with comedian Zach Galifianakis on his "Between two Ferns" Web series, noting Abraham Lincoln famously loved to tell "bawdy jokes."
The hubbub over that video, released last Tuesday, drowned out a White House event with female lawmakers designed to highlight the president’s election-year focus on women’s issues.
Still later on Thursday, Obama used the event at Valencia College in Florida to scold Republicans for opposing the Paycheck Fairness Act.
The commander in chief was replaced by the campaigner in chief, who called on the GOP to "join us in this century" and pass the legislation meant to ensure women receive equal pay for equal work.
Obama also called on lawmakers to raise the minimum wage.
After concluding his remarks, Obama was rushed back to Air Force One for a short trip to Miami, where he plans to attend a fundraiser Thursday night at the home of former Miami Heat star Alonzo Mourning.
None of this is wildly out of order for a modern presidency in which the leader of the free world must balance state dinners with appearances on "The Tonight Show."
But recent events have provided an extreme example of the tightrope Obama must walk.

1AR

Impact

NSA useless

Stephen Walt, 11/4/13, NSA Spying: Where’s the Beef, www.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/11/04/nsa_spying_wheres_the_beef

this activity? With each week, it seems, we learn more about just
AND
big foreign policy and national security gains that we’re reaping from this work?
As a realist, I’m neither surprised nor horrified to learn that governments spy on each other, or that a wealthy, powerful, self-important, and slightly paranoid country like the United States might...ahem...do a bit more of it than others. But this unthinking, unstrategic Hoovering of data, megadata, and actual conversations is obviously out of control, and the diplomatic and other costs could easily outstrip any putative benefits.
In particular, given our capacity and willingness to spy on virtually everyone, you’d
AND
Japanese codes; I want to know if we’re getting similar benefits today.
It is hard to believe we are, given that America’s foreign policy record since
AND
thought. To be frank, I’m not sure which possibility I prefer.
There is a third possibility, of course: The kind of information that the
AND
groundwork for a much more intrusive authoritarian state without getting much compensating benefits.

1ar – Uq o/w

No opposition to reforms—-disproves the time link since it’ll be easy

Shane Harris, Foreign Policy, 3/25/14, Spying Reform’s Big Winner? The NSA, complex.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/25/spying_reforms_big_winner_the_nsa

In the near term, that fight will center on the role of the judicial branch in approving the government’s requests for access to the phone records. The administration’s plan would have each query approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, the body that has the most experience reviewing government spying.
But a bill proposed Tuesday by Reps. Michael Rogers (R-Mich.)
AND
supporting its request to the court — but only after it was collected.
The role of judges is becoming the flashpoint in crafting a final resolution to the
AND
to protect the public." The path is clearing for Rogers and Ruppersberger.
Key senators are also coming around to the White House proposal. Mark Udall (D-Colo.), one of the most steadfast opponents of the NSA, and Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, both signaled their general approval of the administration’s plan to keep the records housed at phone companies and said they were ready to work with the House and the administration to iron out the details.
There is a third proposal on the table, a bill that would go farther than the other two by banning all forms of bulk data collection on Americans, including financial and business records, and requiring that any records requests be made pursuant to an investigation. That’s a far higher standard to meet than the "reasonable articulable suspicion" that the NSA currently uses to query the records of Americans whom might be tangentially connected to terrorism.
The bill has broader support among civil liberties advocates than the White House proposal or
AND
"also joined the consensus that bulk collection of telephone metadata must end."
Ending that bulk collection is precisely the outcome that Snowden had hoped to bring about
AND
of debate, but it’s also a finish line for the previous one.

Differences will get worked out

Julian Sanchez, Daily Beast, 3/25/14, The Best NSA Fix Comes From the Patriot Act’s Author, www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/03/25/the-best-nsa-fix-comes-from-the-patriot-act-s-author.html

Take a victory lap, Edward Snowden. Last summer, the White House and
AND
controversial NSA program, with three main proposals now vying for legislative support.
The two being unveiled this week—bipartisan legislation sponsored by leaders of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and a plan supported by President Barack Obama—are quite similar in their broad outlines but differ in a few key details. Neither, however, goes quite so far in limiting the NSA as the USA Freedom Act, sponsored by Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and born-again Patriot Act author Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner (R-WI).

Opposition’s unraveling

David Hawkings, Roll Call, 3/25/14, Hill’s Bipartisan Deadlock on Phone Records May Be Easing, blogs.rollcall.com/hawkings/obama-nsa-reform-plan-could-ease-congressional-deadlock-on-spying/2/

There are plenty of important points over which to haggle: about the ways the metadata is to be retained, the format for FBI to view the information, the liability for the telecommunications companies, the specificity of the search requests and the reach and secrecy of the judicial oversight.
And the American Civil Liberties Union said it had already found enough differences between the two measures unveiled Tuesday to give its "crucial first step" blessing to the Obama plan while rejecting the Rogers-Ruppersberger bill. The ACLU said that proposal would end up expanding the FBI’s investigative reach instead of limiting it.
But in a year when all sides say they are still ready to share the credit for at least one more top-tier legislative accomplishment, the knot over surveillance may be starting to unravel.

1ar – pounders

Link uniqueness—-multiple controversies undermine the agenda. Issue-specific uniqueness isn’t responsive—if  will still pass, it proves that political capital doesn’t spill over across issue areas —- bills are compartmentalized

1ar – Ukraine

Aid package was a lose for Obama

Stacy Kaper, National Journal, 3/25/14, Democrats Just Lost the Fight Over Ukraine Aid, www.nationaljournal.com/congress/democrats-just-lost-the-fight-over-ukraine-aid-20140325

The fight over a controversial piece of the Ukraine aid package is over: Republicans
AND
contributions. And following Reid’s speech, Republicans were quick to declare victory.

Spills over to the domestic agenda

Frank James, NPR, 3/18/14, Obama’s Foreign Policy: More Second-Term Misses Than Hits, www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/03/18/291192868/obamas-foreign-policy-more-2nd-term-misses-than-hits

Second-term presidents who find their ability to shape domestic affairs limited by congressional
AND
it hurts his image. ... That’s where it plays into domestic politics."

GOP exploiting it

Stephen Walt, Harvard IR Professor, 3/18/14, The Solve-Everything, Do-Nothing White house, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/03/18/the_solve_everything_do_nothing_obama_white_house

At the moment, U.S. foreign policy is in considerable disarray,
AND
Wayne, or Henry Kissinger (as if these are the only options).

Obama just lost on Ukraine aid

John Hudson, Foreign Policy, 3/25/14, Harry Reid Drops IMF Reform from Ukraine Bill, thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2014/03/25/harry_reid_drops_imf_reform_from_ukraine_bill

In the face of staunch Republican opposition in the House of Representatives, Senate Majority
AND
by taking money out of Pentagon programs aimed at missile and aircraft procurement.

Cost capital

WSJ, 3/4/14, A Russian Test for Obama, online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304360704579419381478116294

This challenge surely comes as an unwelcome diversion to a White House that prefers to
AND
the international community that we’re not just going to roll over on this."

1ar – CIA

Interbranch conflict now—Congress investigating the CIA for bypassing the intelligence committee—it’s an all-out war over war on terror authority—that’s Freidersdorf

Obama’s dragged in

Julie Pace, AP White House Correspondent, 3/15/14, Delicate Balancing Act for Obama in CIA-Senate Row, abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/obama-seeks-stay-neutral-cia-senate-spat-22923239?singlePage=true

The public spat between President Barack Obama’s trusted CIA ally and a loyal senator has
AND
. One is Brennan, a senior agency official during the Bush administration.

This is the exact type of fight described in their link evidence

Marc Ambinder, The Week Editor, Former National Journal White House Correspondent, 3/13, What Congress’ war with the CIA is really about, theweek.com/article/index/257839/what-congresss-war-with-the-cia-is-really-about

I don’t think Feinstein wants to debate the Constitution. Here’s what is really at stake.

1. For the better part of 15 years, the executive branch and Congress
   AND
   anything it wants from every classified document that isn’t released by Edward Snowden.
   Feinstein believes differently. Though she defers to the executive branch in matters of policy execution and conception, she thinks that her committee is entitled to everything it requires to facilitate its oversight regime. She concedes the existence of certain privileges, like a president’s need to keep internal deliberative processes secret from Congress, to legitimate the existence of a separate and coequal set of privileges that Congress reserves when it comes to oversight.
   In the instance of the SSCI’s report on rendition, interrogation, and detention,
   AND
   Agency are out of bounds, simply will not compute for Feinstein here.

Highly partisan

Burgess Everett, 3/23/14, Democrats have votes to release CIA report, dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=28B338BC-5979-4FF3-B6A2-1B7153753732

The Senate Intelligence Committee is poised to send a long-awaited report on the CIA’s interrogation practices to President Barack Obama’s desk for his approval — or redaction.
Chairwoman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) says she has the votes on the narrowly divided panel to publicly reveal the executive summary and key conclusions of a 6,300-page report on Bush-era interrogation tactics, a move sure to fuel the Senate’s intense dispute with the CIA over how the panel pieced together the study. That vote is likely to happen sometime this week.
But rather than a strong bipartisan signal from Congress, a vote to unveil the study appears set to divide along party lines because of that dispute.

CIA fight will actually highlight controversial legal issues

Steve Coll, New Yorker, 3/24/14, The Senator vs. The C.I.A., www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2014/03/24/140324taco_talk_coll

In 2012, after three years’ work, the Senate staff completed a six-
AND
two sides have been arguing for months about what the report should say.
The Panetta Review figures in all this because it may influence the final report’s conclusions
AND
so mismanaged negotiations with Feinstein that she would launch such a rare broadside.
Regrettably, the imbroglio may draw the media and the public into complex details of
AND
Administration’s embrace of torture as national policy, carried out in their name?

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southern California Saiedian-Haas | Judge: McCleary, Susko, Warden

2AC

FW – simulate – d=making and fairness

PDB

Legal restraints work – the theory of the exception is self-serving and wrong

William E. Scheuerman 6, Professor of Political Science at Indiana University, Carl Schmitt and the Road to Abu Ghraib, Constellations, Volume 13, Issue 1

Yet this argument relies on Schmitt’s controversial model of politics, as outlined eloquently but
AND
such conflicts before an international court or tribunal probably would have failed.22
Second, Schmitt dwells on the legal inconsistencies that result from modifying the traditional state
AND
) Westphalian system while extending ambitious new protections to non-state actors.
This is a powerful argument, but it remains flawed. Every modern legal order
AND
in a more positive – and by no means incoherent – light.24
Third, Schmitt identifies a deep tension between the classical quest for codified and stable
AND
the long-range weapons of modern technology of war?" (17).
As I have tried to show elsewhere, these are powerful considerations deserving of close
AND
to develop a legal apparatus suited to the special problem of irregular combatants.

Legal norms don’t cause wars and the alt can’t effect liberalism

David Luban 10, law prof at Georgetown, Beyond Traditional Concepts of Lawfare: Carl Schmitt and the Critique of Lawfare, 43 Case W. Res. J. Int’l L. 457

Among these associations is the positive, constructive side of politics, the very foundation
AND
administration. Yet issues like these are the stuff of peaceable human politics.
Schmitt, I have said, uses the word "political" polemically—in
AND
succeeds in showing that lawfare is illegitimate, it de-legitimizes itself.
What about the merits of Schmitt’s critique of humanitarianism? His argument is straightforward: either humanitarianism is toothless and  ~*471~  apolitical, in which case ruthless political actors will destroy the humanitarians; or else humanitarianism is a fighting faith, in which case it has succumbed to the political but made matters worse, because wars on behalf of humanity are the most inhuman wars of all. Liberal humanitarianism is either too weak or too savage.
The argument has obvious merit. When Schmitt wrote in 1932 that wars against "
AND
sinister and crazy" n58 —nor is he indifferent to human suffering.
But international humanitarian law and criminal law are not the same thing as wars to
AND
would be a political decision. It would simply be a bad one.

Demo promo’s inev with or without self-defense and LOAC overlap – proves the perm is key

Terror adv = DA to alt cause public would demand end to strikes, legitimizing them is key

The alternative imposes cookie-cutter ultra-sovereignty onto an international system it can’t describe or govern – the impact is unending violence

Benno Gerhard Teschke 11, IR prof at the University of Sussex, "Fatal attraction: a critique of Carl Schmitt’s international political and legal theory", International Theory (2011), 3 : pp 179-227

Schmitt’s history of international law and order is deeply problematic due to the limits of
AND
law and geopolitics – from Columbus to the Bush Doctrine – from within.

No impact to threat con

Eric A. Posner and Adrian Vermeule 3, law profs at Chicago and Harvard, Accommodating Emergencies, September, http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/48.eap-av.emergency.pdf

Against the view that panicked government officials overreact to an emergency, and unnecessarily curtail
AND
Constitution should be enforced as strictly during emergencies as during non-emergencies.
C. The Influence of Fear during Emergencies
Suppose now that the simple view of fear is correct, and that it is an unambiguously negative influence on government decisionmaking. Critics of accommodation argue that this negative influence of fear justifies skepticism about emergency policies and strict enforcement of the Constitution. However, this argument is implausible. It is doubtful that fear, so understood, has more influence on decisionmaking during emergencies than decisionmaking during non-emergencies.
The panic thesis, implicit in much scholarship though rarely discussed in detail, holds
AND
threat and underweight other things that people value, such as civil liberties.
But if decisionmakers rarely act immediately, then the tiger story cannot bear the metaphoric
AND
that was probably shared by government officials as well as ordinary citizens.53
While, as we have noted, there is psychological research suggesting that normal cognition
AND
more emphasis on security than is justified, and to sacrifice civil liberties.
Fear generated by immediate threats, then, causes instinctive responses that are not rational
AND
, and that is the conventional reason why constitutional constraints should be relaxed.

Rana’s claim is too sweeping, the alt is impossible

David Cole 12, professor of law at Georgetown, "Confronting the Wizard of Oz: National Security,
Expertise, and Secrecy" 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1617-1625 (2012), http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/1085)

Rana is right to focus our attention on the assumptions that frame modern Americans’ conceptions
AND
about security threats; it is also at least in part objectively based.

Prioritization claims are counter-productive and illogical – you should evaluate the veracity of the 1ac’s claims about the world while embracing a plurality of (methods / ontologies / theories)

Andrew Bennett 13, government prof at Georgetown, The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory, European Journal of International Relations 2013 19:459

The political science subfield of International Relations (IR) continues to undergo debates on
AND
have explicitly framed their approach as paradigmatic or programmatic (Hopf, 1998).
A second level of the debate involves post-positivist critiques of IR as a
AND
that the social sciences face even more daunting challenges than the physical sciences.
A third axis of contestation has been methodological, involving claims regarding the strengths and
AND
2010; George and Bennett, 2005; Goertz and Mahoney, 2006).
These debates have each in their own way proved fruitful, increasing the theoretical,
AND
, military intervention, civil and ethnic conflicts, and many other topics.
Yet there is a widespread sense that this progress has arisen in spite of interparadigmatic
AND
explanatory weight is carried by more fine-grained theories about ’causal mechanisms."
In this article I argue that those urging a pragmatic turn in IR are correct
AND
, and that reaches beyond IR to the rest of the social sciences.
I maintain that in order to sustain the genuine contributions made under the guise of
AND
social science disciplines in ways that allow both intelligible discourse and cumulative progress.
Alter briefly outlining the problems associated with organizing the IR field around the "isms
AND
discourses that have been inhibited by the scholasticism of IR’s ingrown ’isms.’

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 3 | Opponent: Southern California Saiedian-Haas | Judge: McCleary, Susko, Warden

2AC

PDB

Doesn’t solve legal clarity because it maintains the current assertion of authority – Congress is key to signal – that’s maxwell

Also doesn’t solve terror by clearing up training requirements

Clarification isn’t trusted – countries have to raid-watch our actual strikes and try to diagnose what we’re upto – that’s blank

Empirics

Sarah Knuckey, NYU Law School Project on Extrajudicial Executions Director, Special Advisor to the UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial executions, 10/1/13, Transparency on Targeted Killings: Promises Made, but Little Progress, justsecurity.org/2013/10/01/transparency-targeted-killings-promises-made-progress/

Some interpreted these efforts and the President’s speech to mark the beginning of improved transparency.  But despite transparency promises and expectations, many of the same, core concerns regarding undue secrecy remain. The President’s speech, the Policy Guidance, and Holder’s letter – because of textual ambiguities within each, and combined with events since – have largely failed to address these longstanding concerns, and in some important respects aggravated them.
Continuing Secrecy on Core Issues
Key areas in which transparency has not yet been forthcoming include:   
    Who can be killed, where, and on what basis.  Demands for
AND
had "expanded the scope" of who could be targeted in Yemen).

Fails

Eric Posner, Professor of Law, The University of Chicago Law School, and Adrian Vermeule, Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, 2007, The Credible Executive, 74 U. Chi. L. Rev. 865

In an interesting treatment of related problems, Neal Katyal suggests that the failure of
AND
by insulated "executive" decisionmakers who resemble judges in many ways. n79
Katyal’s argument is relevant because the mechanisms he discusses might be understood as signaling devices
AND
, but it is not explained why the constitutional order should be fractal.
Second, Katyal’s proposals for internal separation of powers are self-defeating: the
AND
that the proposals are not self-defeating, whatever their other drawbacks.

Executive lead makes Congressional follow-on impossible

Ezra Klein, Washington Post, 4/19/13, Obama’s second term is upending what we think we know about Washington, www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/04/19/obamas-second-term-is-upending-what-we-think-we-know-about-washington/?print=1

So the White House is running an outside game on gun control and an inside game on the budget. But there’s a third and more provocative theory of presidential power. Widely subscribed to by political scientists, this theory makes people in Washington very uncomfortable because it upends cherished assumptions about how politics in general — and the presidency in particular — functions.
Under this theory, and the data that supports it, the president isn’t a unifying figure, or even a particularly persuasive one, when government is divided. Decades of polls show little evidence that presidential speeches move voters. They can draw attention to issues, but they rarely change attitudes — and they occasionally backfire.
Worse, because the president is an intrinsically polarizing figure, anything he endorses becomes instantly less appealing to the minority party. In eras of divided government, that can make it impossible to pass legislation. If this theory of presidential power is correct, the best thing a president can do is often nothing — at least in public.

Self-restraint results in turf wars, constraining future executive flexibility

Katyal 13 (Neal, Paul and Patricia Saunders Professor of Law, Georgetown University, "BOOK REVIEW: STOCHASTIC CONSTRAINT" February, 2013, 126 Harv. L. Rev. 990)

In the end, there is a deep risk that Goldsmith’s new constraints will not
AND
, the Executive may end up with less power than it truly needs.

Reporting requirement plank means their ev doesn’t shield or the perm does

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

Baloch

Baloch secession triggers state collapse and lashout

Malik 12
(Former Defence Adviser to Australia and New Zealand and Sec. General of Pakistan Forum for Security and Development, "A Threat in the Making," http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/19-Mar-2012/a-threat-in-the-making)

Such a US dominated independent unified Balochistan would literally cut Pakistan to size, unleashing
AND
UNSC and all other related international platforms to forestall any such gargantuan misadventures.

Baloch secession leads to escalating civil war

Hilaly, 12
(2/26, Former Ambassador 26 Columnist for The News (Pakistan), "Balochistan is not beyond hope," http://www.thenews.com.pk/TodaysPrintDetail.aspx?ID=9464326Cat=9)

It is equally absurd for those hotheads in exile to think that the Baloch can
AND
and also because of the way we have mismanaged our overall foreign relations.
 

Independence push triggers war

Shahid, 12
(2/28, Columnist-The Dawn (India), "Secession to compound problem, says Raisani," http://www.dawn.com/2012/02/28/secession-to-compound-problem-says-raisani.html)

QUETTA: Balochistan Chief Minister Nawab Aslam Raisani has said he believes in dialogue for
AND
there would be a big disaster if Balochistan was separated from the country.

Collapses Pakistan — nuclear use

Akbar, 11
(Hubert Humphrey Fellow at the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, 10/20, ’A civil war in Afghanistan will further destabilise Pakistan’
http://www.dawn.com/2011/10/20/E28098a-post-2014-civil-war-in-afghanistan-will-further-destabilise-pakistanE28099.html

A. Outside forces have had a very detrimental effect on Afghanistan. One important
AND
momentum, then the safety of Pakistan’s nuclear program will also become worrisome.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

Absent modeling—-CMR key to stop global nuclear war

Fried, 12
(Dean’s Teaching Fellow-Johns Hopkins, "Rethinking Civilian Control: Nuclear Weapons, American Constitutionalism and War-Making," For Presentation at the 2012 Millennium Conference, London School of Economics and Political Science, 10/21, millenniumjournal.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/fried-lse-paper.docx?)

This material contextual dynamic is also illustrated by a novel shift in civil military relations
AND
for it would be only he who can give the order to strike.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

PDB

Perm do counterplan – if they take up a case, it would result in the same ruling of the aff – if not,it doesn’t overrule the 4^th circuit and links more the NB because they’re shafting themselves

CP increases confusion – 4^th circuit already ruled on al-Marri

Doesn’t solve CMR because interference with the PCA is based on precedent, not just this one instance

Counterplan is the status quo—-both Patriot Act and Non-Detention Act said no domestic detention

Huq, 9
(Law Prof-Brennan Center-NYU, "Brief for Petitioner, Al Marri v. Spagone, Supreme Court, http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/al-marri-v-spagone/)

Second, the Fourth Circuit ignored Congress’s clear intent,
AND
But, as discussed above, the AUMF provides no such authorization.

Our entire aff it was bad for the courts to uphold a reading of the law that upends SOP—-just having Congress change course does nothing to alter the symbolic and precedential value of the ruling

Lynch, 9
(Legal Fellow-Cato Institute, 1/28, Brief of the Cato Institute, The Constitution Project, and The Rutherford Institute, as Amici Curiae in Support of Reversal, Al Marri v. Spagone, WestLaw)

The Constitution Project is an independent, bi-partisan think tank which creates coalitions
AND
forth above, the judgment of the court of appeals should be reversed.

We are straight-turning PQD

A clear statement rule does not interfere – it has the courts tell Congress to clarify the scope of authority, which explicitly avoids the courts dictating outcomes

But only the plan avoids a crushing constitutional ruling and foster inter-branch dialogue that’s key to presidential power

Russell, 9
(Partner-Howe 26 Russell, Brief of Constitutional Law Scholars Bruce Ackerman, Erwin Chemerinsky, Richard A. Epstein, Richard H. Fallon, Pamela S. Karlan, Geoffrey R. Stone, Kathleen M. Sullivan, and Laurence H. Tribe as Amici Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Al Marri v. Spagone, WestLaw)

Whether such an extension should be attempted is a decision the Constitution gives, in
AND
lawful U.S. residents in the absence of clear legislative authorization.
In light of the Constitution’s allocation of wartime authority, this Court should require clear
AND
548 U.S. at 636 (Breyer, J., concurring).

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

No drone shift link—-numbers don’t line up

Robert Chesney 11, Charles I. Francis Professor in Law at the UT School of Law as well as a non-resident Senior Fellow at Brookings, "Examining the Evidence of a Detention-Drone Strike Tradeoff", October 17, www.lawfareblog.com/2011/10/examining-the-evidence-of-a-detention-drone-strike-tradeoff/

Yesterday Jack linked to this piece by Noah Feldman, which among other things advances
AND
detention versus targeting, but something much more complex and difficult to measure.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

Plan preserves judicial capital

Kennedy 2 (Joseph, Assistant Professor, University of North Carolina School of Law, " MAKING THE CRIME FIT THE PUNISHMENT" Spring, 2002, 51 Emory L.J. 753) Insert Footnote 452 

William Eskridge and Philip Frickey have argued that substantive canons of interpretation - as opposed
AND
extrinsic source - leave no room for doubt about the Court’s intent. n444
Paradoxically, these super-strong clear statement rules protect values that are constitutional in nature but that arise in areas where the Court has refrained from direct constitutional regulation. Eskridge and Frickey argue that these super-strong clear statement rules have created a "domain of quasi-con-stitutional law."
Such rules are protecting particularly important constitutional values. But, on the other hand
AND
the statute for Congress to limit the states or the executive department. n445
 ~*858~  Frickey and Eskridge point out that quasi-constitutional law has much to recommend it. In areas such as federalism, where constitutional norms are underenforced and essentially unenforceable, "the Court may have a legitimate role in forcing the political process to pay attention to the constitutional values at stake, and super-strong clear statement rules are a practical way for the Court to focus legislative attention on these values." n446
While acknowledging that "much of what the Court has been doing may have been
AND
protection through statutory interpretation obviously minimizes the offense given to countermajoritarian concerns. n450
Eskridge and Frickey point out serious problems with both this underlying theory and with the
AND
constitutional values that the Court has been protecting through clear statement rules. n453

Single decision don’t matter – controversy’s inevitable and irrelevant

ABA 13 (American Bar Association" Experts predict more divided decisions when Supreme Court takes on controversial cases in new term" September 2013, ABA News)

Experts predict more divided decisions when Supreme Court takes on controversial cases in new term
As the Supreme Court prepares to begin a new docket in October, constitutional law
AND
the American Bar Association panel, "A Conversation on the Supreme Court."
"We had a blockbuster term last June that ended with a series of hotly contested 5-4 decisions involving voting rights and marriage equality," said Jeffrey Rosen, president and CEO of the National Constitution Center.
Erwin Chemerinsky, dean and distinguished professor at the University of California-Irvine School of Law, said that out of the 73 cases the Supreme Court decided in the 2012-13 term, 23 were resolved with a 5-4 split.
Rosen said the big question for the new term will be whether the high court will continue to divide 5-4 along apparent ideological lines or whether Chief Justice John Roberts will be able to persuade the justices to come together for narrow, unanimous opinions, similar to the past term’s affirmative action case, Fisher v. University of Texas.
Affirmative action will make an appearance in the upcoming term as well, with the Supreme Court agreeing to hear Schuette v. Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, a case with the potential to address questions that remained after the Fisher decision. The court will examine whether a state law that prohibits discrimination or preferential treatment based on race or sex is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
"It’s very different than any of the other affirmative action cases that have ever come before the court," Chemerinsky said. "The prior affirmative action cases, whether it’s Fisher or Grutter or even back to Bakke, were all about when is it permissible for the government to voluntarily choose to have an affirmative action program?" He said it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court deals with a state prohibiting affirmative action programs.
Another high-profile case, the National Labor Relations Board v. Noel Canning
AND
NLRB from taking action, Obama made three recess appointments to the NLRB.
The Recess Appointments Clause in Article 2 of the Constitution states that "the president shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session." When the newly appointed NLRB members ruled against Canning in a case, he sued the board, claiming it did not have the proper authority to make the decision.
Chemerinsky described the Canning case that came before the NLRB as "a garden-variety kind of labor management matter that comes before the NLRB all the time. There’s nothing particularly unique about these facts or even notable."
"What makes this case so important is the way in which the membership of the NLRB had been determined as of the time it was ruling on the union’s complaint against Noel Canning," he said.
"The stakes in this are enormous because the NLRB, with these three recess
AND
. This goes back to practices that started in the early 19th century."
A review of the executive branch’s use of the Recess Appointments Clause reveals that the issue has remained controversial in the absence of a Supreme Court decision delineating what the framers meant. This case in the upcoming term may finally resolve the ongoing debate.
Another political issue at hand in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission is the idea of limiting how much money an individual can contribute to a political campaign. Is setting a limit on how much a person can give to federal election candidates a violation of free speech?
Chemerinsky said the court previously found in Buckley v. Valeo that contribution limits are
AND
an outcome against contribution limits could once again change the political fundraising landscape.
"It will be fascinating to see if the court really does take the step of abandoning the expenditures/contribution distinction," said Paul Smith, partner at Jenner 26 Block LLP. Smith said that if the court does abandon the distinction, "basically the entire edifice of campaign finance regulation will come down."
In the high-profile case of McCullen v. Coakley, abortion sets the stage but is not the issue at hand. Rather than deciding on the legality of the medical practice, as the court has wrestled with in the past, the question will revolve around the First Amendment and the court’s interpretation of free speech.
Massachusetts has a law preventing abortion opponents from getting within 35 feet of clinics providing
AND
pro-choice speech but not anti-abortion speech," Smith explained.
He predicts divided decisions on McCullen v. Coakley and Town of Greece v. Galloway, another First Amendment case before the court, but this one concerning freedom of religion. Smith said he expects the "two warring camps" to disagree on whether a town prayer before a city council meeting violates the amendment.
Another challenge for the court will be whether to determine the legality behind certain searches
AND
because "moving forward, this is going to become an important issue."
Hashimoto also thinks it will be an entertaining oral argument, based on past sessions concerning the justices’ understanding of text messaging. "Justice ~Elena~ Kagan in a recent speech said the justices are not necessarily the most technologically sophisticated people and the court hasn’t really gotten to email. So oral argument may be really fun," Hashimoto said.
Chemerinsky said the court first needs to determine what information stored digitally is protected under the Fourth Amendment. "I don’t think the court can decide whether looking at someone’s cellphone is a search and what’s in the scope of the arrest without having a theory of informational privacy," he said.
With each controversial issue that comes before the court, there is history and precedent
AND
and no single decision will matter much for its legitimacy," Chemerinsky said.

Recess appointments and EPA disprove the internal link

Warren Richey, Staff writer, 2/23/14 ~"Supreme Court takes up challenge to Obama and the EPA," http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0223/Supreme-Court-takes-up-challenge-to-Obama-and-the-EPA-video~~

For the second time in two months, the US Supreme Court is taking up
AND
whether those mechanisms comply with constitutional and statutory limits on executive power. ¶ 

No impact to economic decline – prefer new data

Daniel Drezner 14, IR prof at Tufts, The System Worked: Global Economic Governance during the Great Recession, World Politics, Volume 66. Number 1, January 2014, pp. 123-164

The final significant outcome addresses a dog that hasn’t barked: the effect of the
AND
surge in protectionist nationalism or ethnic exclusion that might have been expected."43

Ukraine will crash the economy

Thompson and Wallace, CNN Money, 3/3/’14
(Mark and Gregory, "Ukraine crisis: Why it matters to the world economy," CNNMoney)

While the world watches the escalating crisis in Ukraine, investors and world leaders are considering how the instability could roil the global economy.
The political turmoil is rooted in the country’s strategic economic position. It is an important conduit between Russia and major European markets, as well as a significant exporter of grain.
But in the post-Soviet era, it’s a weakened economy. Now, the government is in need of an economic rescue — and torn between whether Russia or the Western economies (including the European Union) is the savior it needs.
Here are five reasons the world’s largest economies are watching what happens in Ukraine.

1. Ukraine is an important tie between Russia and the rest of Europe: Ukraine doesn’t hold the economic power it once did, but it does retain its geography. Russia supplies about 25 of Europe’s gas needs, and half of that is pumped via pipelines running through Ukraine. Moscow has cut off that flow in past disputes with Kiev and a disruption could push up energy prices for businesses and households.
   The critical Crimean peninsula juts into the Black Sea, and the Russians base their Black Sea navy there.
   2. Sanctions on Russia: One prospect on the table would be the unusual circumstance of a top-10 global economy placing sanctions on another. But Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the U.S. is "absolutely" willing to consider sanctions against Russia. President Obama, he added, "is currently considering all options."
   That possibility must be on the mind of Russia’s government, which is certainly "looking very seriously at the economic component of" its military and diplomatic moves, said John Beyrle, a former U.S. ambassador to Russia.
   "The reality is that Russia is dependent on the international economy in a way that wasn’t true 10 years ago," Beyrle said Sunday on CNN’s "State of the Union." "Fully one -half of Russia’s foreign trade now ... is with European Union countries. Russia depends on European imports to keep its stores filled, to keep the standard of living that Russians have gotten accustomed to."
   Even if sanctions aren’t leveled, the political relationship between Russia and the West will likely chill. Although President Obama spent an hour and a half on the phone with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Saturday, the U.S. is expected to skip an upcoming G8 preparatory meeting in Sochi, Russia. On Sunday, U.S. officials also canceled upcoming energy and trade talks with their Russian counterparts.
   3. European and world trade could be impacted: The impact could be felt beyond Europe if the world’s supply of grain is impacted. Ukraine is one of the world’s top exporters of corn and wheat, and prices could rise even on concern those exports could halt.
   And the current political uprising was fueled by the government’s handling of a trade agreement that would have brought Ukraine closer to the European Union. The government cut off negotiations in November amid pressure from Russia, which offered discounts on natural gas if Ukraine signed a pact with Moscow’s Customs Union.
   4. Ukraine’s government is in debt and needs assistance: The situation arguably would not be so volatile if Ukranian government coffers were more stable or the economy stronger. The country owes 2413 billion in debt this year and 2416 billion comes due before the end of 2015. Without help, the country appears to be headed for default.
   "In order to avoid a complete collapse in the coming weeks, Ukraine needs money now," Lubomir Mitov, emerging Europe chief economist at the Institute of International Finance, said. "Ukraine cannot survive without reforms in the next few months."
   It’s not clear who would supply the needed economic assistance, especially after the ouster of key Russian-aligned officials prompted Moscow to freeze a 2415 billion bailout and there is no comparable alternative in sight.
   The most likely source of support would be the International Monetary Fund. Managing Director Christine Lagarde said the IMF is consulting with other bodies that could help raise the 2435 billion Ukraine says it needs.
   The IMF said Monday that it would begin a fact-finding mission in Kiev starting Tuesday and concluding on March 14 to "discuss the policy reforms" that world body would require as part of any loan.
   Treasury Secretary Jack Lew said Sunday the U.S. is "prepared to work (with) partners to provide as much support as Ukraine needs" for economic growth and stability.
   5. Ukraine isn’t the only fragile emerging market: Ukraine’s instability comes at a
   AND
   The Russian ruble is down about 10 since the start of 2014.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

RoB

 plan, d-making and fairness====

PDB

Ghoshray’s theory of the law is wrong

Sanders, assistant professor of political science – U Cincinnati, ’12
(Rebecca, "Exceptional Security Practices, Human Rights Abuses, and the Politics of Legal Legitimation in the American ’Global War on Terror’," A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Political Science University of Toronto, p. 366-368)

I found that changes in the structure of constraint have encouraged the resort to a
AND
purpose, it permitted abuse, but limited the resort to pure lawlessness. 

Their impact is about all globalization – not intrinsic to the 1AC

Sovereign legalism is inevitable and sustainable

S.D. Krasner 10, political science professor at Stanford, "The Durability of Organized Hypocrisy", in Sovereignty in Fragments: The Past, Present and Future of a Contested Concept, googlebooks

Sovereignty has come to provide the dominant logic of appropriateness for organizing political life,
AND
fundamental assumption about actual practice. The three core elements of sovereignty are:
The concept of sovereignty embeds two separate and distinct principles and one fundamental assumption about actual practice. The three core elements of sovereignty are:

• International legal sovereignty: international recognition which implies the right to enter into contracts or treaties with other states, juridical equality, membership in international organizations.
• Westphalian/Vattelian sovereignty: the absence of submission to external authority structures, even structures that states have created using their international legal sovereignty.
• Domestic sovereignty: more or less effective control over the territory of the state including the ability to regulate trans-border movements.
  These three elements of sovereignty are analytically and empirically distinct; they are not an
  AND
  the pre-modern world of failed, repressive and badly governed states.
  The rules and practices of sovereignty did not begin at any particular point in time
  AND
  Oath by which every one is bound to the Emperor and the Empire’.
  That sovereignty has always been characterized by organized hypocrisy, a disjunction between logics of
  AND
  European Union and failed states have brought organized hypocrisy into the contemporary world.
  Sovereignty has endured because the interests of key players in the system could be accommodated
  AND
  happy to accommodate China’s desires even though this meant violating conventional sovereignty norms.

Case

 DA to alt cause it’s based on a specific legal course-correction, which they reject – also turns their impact cause rejection just results in the squo ruling, not the absence of law====

Can’t solve neolib

Jamie Peck 10, geography prof at the University of British Columbia, Postneoliberalism and its Malcontents, Antipode, Volume 41, Issue Supplement s1, pages 94–116

While Latin American experiences can and should spur the postneoliberal imagination, the region’s lessons
AND
power (Drake 2006). As Sader (2009:176) notes:
the deregulation fostered by neoliberal policies favoured the hegemony of financial capital in its speculative
AND
, due to the different interests of the biggest powers and international corporations.
Whereas neoliberalism may have exposed the limits of financial capitalism, it has also undermined
AND
dull compulsion of competitive pressures and through the harsh imperatives of regulatory downloading.

1AR

The system’s resilient and the alt fails

Gideon Rose 12, Editor of Foreign Affairs, "Making Modernity Work", Foreign Affairs, January/February

The central question of modernity has been how to reconcile capitalism and mass democracy,
AND
in the past, optimism would seem the better long-term bet.

No crisis of ideology

Gideon Rose 12, Editor of Foreign Affairs, "Making Modernity Work", Foreign Affairs, January/February

We are living, so we are told, through an ideological crisis. The
AND
. In ideological terms, at least, all the rest is commentary.

No mindset shift

Matthew Lockwood 11, previously Associate Director for Climate, Transport and Energy at the Institute for Public Policy Research, "The Limits to Environmentalism", March 25, http://politicalclimate.net/2011/03/25/the-limits-to-environmentalism-4/

This brings us neatly finally to the third problem with PWG: politics. Jackson
AND
to solve problems, and overcome apparently unbeatable odds, at its heart.

Prioritization claims are counter-productive and illogical – you should evaluate the veracity of the 1ac’s claims about the world while embracing a plurality of (methods / ontologies / theories)

Andrew Bennett 13, government prof at Georgetown, The mother of all isms: Causal mechanisms and structured pluralism in International Relations theory, European Journal of International Relations 2013 19:459

The political science subfield of International Relations (IR) continues to undergo debates on
AND
have explicitly framed their approach as paradigmatic or programmatic (Hopf, 1998).
A second level of the debate involves post-positivist critiques of IR as a
AND
that the social sciences face even more daunting challenges than the physical sciences.
A third axis of contestation has been methodological, involving claims regarding the strengths and
AND
2010; George and Bennett, 2005; Goertz and Mahoney, 2006).
These debates have each in their own way proved fruitful, increasing the theoretical,
AND
, military intervention, civil and ethnic conflicts, and many other topics.
Yet there is a widespread sense that this progress has arisen in spite of interparadigmatic
AND
explanatory weight is carried by more fine-grained theories about ’causal mechanisms."
In this article I argue that those urging a pragmatic turn in IR are correct
AND
, and that reaches beyond IR to the rest of the social sciences.
I maintain that in order to sustain the genuine contributions made under the guise of
AND
social science disciplines in ways that allow both intelligible discourse and cumulative progress.
Alter briefly outlining the problems associated with organizing the IR field around the "isms
AND
discourses that have been inhibited by the scholasticism of IR’s ingrown ’isms.’

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

1AC

adv 1

Adv 1—CMR

Interpreting existing statutes to authorize domestic detention decimates civil military relations—- express Congressional authorization key to civilian control

Wilner, 9
(Counsel-Counsel-Shearman 26 Sterling, "Brief of Retired Military Officers and the National Institute of Military Justice as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioner," Al-Marri v. Spagone, http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_08_368_PetitionerAmCuRetMilOfficersandNIMJ.authcheckdam.pdf)

Since the founding of our country, civilian and military leaders have supported limitations on
AND
the democratic system, the military, and the relationship between the two. 

Requiring a congressional role in detention solves CMR

Yingling, 10
Security Studies Prof-George C. Marshall Center 26 Former Army Officer, 2/1, "The Founders’ Wisdom," http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/the-founders-wisdom/)

The U.S. faces a number of difficult challenges in civil-military
AND
executive demands for broad discretion with equally important concerns for accountability and oversight.

US CMR directly modeled—self restraint doesn’t solve

Cimbala 12
(Poli Sci Prof-Penn State Brandywine, Civil-military Relations in Perspective: Strategy, Structure and Policy, p. 85-100)

That said, the pendulum in the U.S. case is swinging toward
AND
— remains so far outside the intellectual discourse on civil-military relations.

US CMR key to joint training exercises

Kohn, 2
(Military History Prof-UNC, "The erosion of civilian control of the military in the United States today, Naval War College Review, 6/22, http://usnwc.edu/getattachment/c280d26a-9d66-466a-809b-e0804cbc05f4/Erosion-of-Civilian-Control-of-the-Military-in-the.aspx)

Ponder whether you are prepared to accept, as a principle of civilian control,
AND
need to be conscious of these problems and to work to ameliorate them. 

US model for joint training exercises solve global war—specifically Afghanistan

Cimbala, 12
(Poli Sci Prof-Penn State Brandywine, Civil-military Relations in Perspective: Strategy, Structure and Policy, p. 8-10)

An interesting question with respect to civil-military relations is whether modernizing autocracies with
AND
nuclear weapons and launchers are stored in peacetime and made ready during crises.

Key to Afghan stability

Armstrong, 11 
(National Security Research Fellow at the Institute for National Security and Counterterrorism, "Afghan Security Force Assistance or Security Sector Reform? Despite Recent Improvements in the Afghan Security Forces, More Emphasis on Ministerial Development and Police Reform is Needed", 12/21, insct.org/commentary-analysis/2011/12/21/afghan-security-force-assistance-or-security-sector-reform-despite-recent-improvements-in-the-afghan-security-forces-more-emphasis-on-ministerial-development-and-police-reform-is-needed/)

Security force assistance is the next logical step in the triage of armed statebuilding in
AND
security sector and its civil-military relations on a more sustainable path.

Detention cred on judicial protection of citizens is crucial

ICG 10 
(International Crisis Group, 11/17, "REFORMING AFGHANISTAN’S BROKEN JUDICIARY", http://www.crisisgroup.org/~~/media/Files/asia/south-asia/afghanistan/19520Reforming20Afghanistans20Broken20Judiciary.ashx)

A substantial course correction is needed to restore the rule of law in Afghanistan.
AND
control of detention facilities is smooth, transparent and adheres to international law.

Afghan governance collapse causes nuclear war

Cronin 13 
(Prof-Public Policy at George Mason, "Thinking Long on Afghanistan: Could it be Neutralized?, The Washington Quarterly Vol. 36, No. 1, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2013.751650)

With ISAF withdrawal inevitable, a sea change is already underway: the question is
AND
except this time the outcome could be not just terrorism but nuclear war.

Escalates

Rubin, 11 
(Director of Policy and Government Affairs-Ploughshares Fund, 7/7, Nuclear Concerns After the Afghanistan Withdrawal, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joel-rubin/middle-east-nuclear-threat_b_891178.html)

The national security calculus of keeping U.S. forces in Afghanistan has shifted
AND
has the greatest risk of arms races and nuclear conflict in the world.

Global nuclear war

Carafano, 10
(1/2, Sr. Fellow-Heritage Foundation, http://gazettextra.com/news/2010/jan/02/con-obama-must-win-fast-afghanistan-or-risk-new-wa/)

We can expect similar results if Obama’s Afghan strategy fails and he opts to cut
AND
a puny EU military force incapable of defending the interests of its nations.

US CMR model in Argentina key to solve Falklands conflict

Isacson, 11
(Sr. Associate for Regional Security Policy-Washington Office on Latin America, "Why Latin America Is Rearming," 2/4, http://www.wola.org/commentary/why_latin_america_is_rearming)

Latin American nations very seldom fight each other. It has been over 70 years
AND
, but today’s complexity makes clear that there is really no other choice.

Exporting CMR deescalates Falkland conflict

Szusterman, 12
(Director of the Latin America Programme at the Institute for Statecraft, "Latin America and Learning from NATO’s Experience," 12/20, http://www.statecraft.org.uk/sites/statecraft.org.uk/files/documents/NATO20Papers2011-Latin20America20and20NATO.pdf

However, despite this regional framework for economic cooperation, "democratic governments ~…~ have
AND
needed to improve the regional security collaboration without which these threats will multiply.

Causes global war

Rozoff, 10
(2/23, MA-European History 26 Manager-Stop NATO International, South Atlantic: Britain May Provoke New Conflict With Argentina
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/02/23/south-atlantic-britain-may-provoke-new-conflict-with-argentina/

Her Venezuelan colleague President Hugo Chavez, indicating the dangerous dimension a new British-
AND
rapidly spread far beyond the waters off the southern tip of South America.

adv 2

Adv 2—SOP

Lack of a clear statement rule on detention destroys US credibility—makes it impossible to promote the rule of law globally

Wells, 9
(President-American Bar Association, Brief Amicus Curiae of American Bar Association in Support of Petitioner, Al Marri v. Spagone, 1/28, WestLaw)

For over two hundred years, whenever this nation has been confronted by war,
AND
pursuant to an Act of Congress that establishes constitutionally permissible standards and procedures.

Reversing the Al-Marri decision key—-misreading legislative precedent shatters our influence

Atwood, 9
(Et. Al, Frmr. USAID Administrator, Amicus Brief, Al-Marri v Spagone, Brief of Frmr. US Diplomats, 1/28, http://www.brennancenter.org/sites/default/files/legacy/Justice/20090128.Almarri.v.Sapgone.Amicus.Brief-Former.U.S.Diplomats.pdf)

One hallmark of a dictatorship is the government’s assertion of a right to arrest and
AND
Chechnya, has also heralded the war on terror as its primary justification.

SOP model from detention key—-solves global instability

Knowles, 9 
(Law Prof-NYU, "Article: American Hegemony and the Foreign Affairs Constitution", 41 Ariz. St. L.J. 87, Spring, Lexis)

The hegemonic model also reduces the need for executive branch flexibility, and the institutional
AND
the U.S. breaks its own rules, it loses legitimacy. 

Democratic liberalism backsliding now—-the US model of an unrestrained executive causes collapse

Diamond, 9 
(Poli Sci Prof-Stanford, "The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Democracy", Presented to the SAIS-CGD Conference on New Ideas in Development after the Financial Crisis, Conference Paper)

Concern about the future of democracy is further warranted by the gathering signs of a
AND
and for the effective restoration of democracy in countries like Thailand and Nepal.

Great power war

Gat, 11
(National Security Prof-Tel Aviv University, "The Changing Character of War," in The Changing Character of War, ed. Strachan 26 Scheipers, P. 30-32)

Since 1945, the decline of major great power war has deepened further. Nuclear
AND
, they may vary less than seemed likely only a short while ago.

Supreme Court actions on detention modeled in Iraq—-lack of credibility on detention decimates our signal

Scharf, 9
(PILPG Managing Director, with John Drinko-Law Prof-Case Western, "BRIEF OF THE PUBLIC INTERNATIONAL LAW 26 POLICY GROUP AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS", www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_09_10_08_1234_PetitionerAmCuPILPG.authcheckdam.pdf)

As the foregoing examples illustrate, foreign governments rely on the precedent set by the
AND
upholds the rule of law, foreign judges are more likely to follow.

Improving governance key to stave off Iraqi civil war

Cordesman, 13
(Burke Chair in Strategy at CSIS, 9/9, "Violence in Iraq: The Growing Risk of Serious Civil Conflict", https://csis.org/files/publication/120718_Iraq_US_Withdrawal_Search_SecStab.pdf)

Iraq is a nation with great potential and its political divisions and ongoing low-
AND
failures may cause a new major civil war or even divide the country. 

Judicial independence crucial to solve

Pimental, 13
(Law Prof-Ohio Northern University, June, "Judicial Independence in Post-Conflict Iraq: Establishing the Rule of Law in an Islamic Constitutional Democracy", http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=101326context=david_pimentel)

Contemporary Iraq is facing the full range of challenges that come with post-conflict
AND
vigilante score-settling that signals the breakdown of the Rule of Law. 

Iraq collapse causes escalatory Middle East conflict and Baloch secessionist wars

Byman, 6
(Prof of Security Studies-Georgetown, 8/20, "What Next," http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/18/AR2006081800983_pf.html)

The consequences of an all-out civil war in Iraq could be dire.
AND
intervention, they will have a powerful incentive to launch a conventional invasion.

Global nuclear war

Mir 12
(Columnist for The Nation (Pakistan) 26 Author of the book Gwadar on the Global Chessboard, "Balochistan and geopolitics," http://www.nation.com.pk/pakistan-news-newspaper-daily-english-online/columns/02-Mar-2012/balochistan-and-geopolitics)

Today, the "province" of Balochistan resides in Pakistan, though part of
AND
but will initiate a war, perhaps, leading to World War III.

Court must require a clear statement for domestic detention—-crucial to SOP

Harvard Law Review 6
("Constitutional Law. Separation of Powers. Fourth Circuit Holds That Congress Authorized the President to Detain American Citizens Captured on U.S. Soil as Enemy Combatant, Padilla v.Hanft, 423 F.3d 386 (4th Cir. 2005), Cert. Denied, 126 S. Ct. 1649 (2006)," 119 Harv. L. Rev. 2628, June, Lexis)

Federal courts often look to Congress for help in defining executive power during wartime,
AND
work together to deliver on the Constitution’s dual promises of security and liberty.

Plan solves—key to three branch model

Erickson-Muschko, 13
(JD-Georgetown Law, Beyond Individual Status: The Clear Statement Rule and the Scope of the AUMF Detention Authority in the United States, 101 Geo. L.J. 1399, June, Lexis)

IV. MOVING BEYOND INDIVIDUAL STATUS: THE CONSTITUTION APPLIES IN THE UNITED STATES This
AND
~e~ntrusted with the guardianship of the Constitution and laws." n168

Lack of CMR in Latin America creates a crisis of instability

Elin Skaar, Ph.d., Senior Researcher, Coordinator: Rights and Legal Institutions @ CMI, and Camila Gianella Malca, 2014, "Latin American Civil-Military Relations in a Historical Perspective: A Literature Review," January 17

About fifteen years ago, Consuelo Cruz and Rut Diamint optimistically noted that "The
AND
or South America or the Spanish-speaking Caribbean" (Loveman 1994).
As authoritarian regimes started to break down in the early 1980s, Latin America embarked
AND
region? And what is the relationship between the military and civilians today?

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

Perm do the counterplan – the CP is the aff with overspecificaiton of statute and the grounds put before the ruling

Perm do the CP — Delegating to an international court is a statutory restriction

EUGENE KONTOROVICH, Associate Professor, Northwestern University School of Law, 2009, THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF INTERNATIONAL COURTS: THE FORGOTTEN PRECEDENT OF SLAVE-TRADE TRIBUNALS, EBSCO

One might answer the extradition analogy by observing that, to the extent the international
AND
court, they can be made directly against the treaty that empowers it.
Professor Pfander makes a more nuanced version of the "nonU.S." argument
AND
, though this again may have been a function of their binational structure,)
Yet the response to the extradition argument may be repeated here, though perhaps not
AND
, even though the ICC was already constituted with respect to other countries.

Perm do both

Doesn’t solve because by definition it has NO GROUNDS

Also doesn’t solve our model because it doesn’t craft a right to release

Avoidance canon fails—-allows executive carve-outs that access our whole case

Katyal, 7
(Former Solicitor General 26 Law Prof-Georgetown, with Derek Jenks, Law Prof-UT, "Disregarding Foreign Relations Law," 116 Yale L.J. 1230, April, Lexis)

Posner and Sunstein offer one other response, which is that "other canons of
AND
so in areas that are concerned with restraining the powers of the executive.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 7 | Opponent: Michigan Allen-Pappas | Judge: Box, Stone, Stout

2AC

We Meet – we prohibit it without a clear statement from Congress

Or their interpretation requires the plan to ban all activities in each area – no aff meets, doesn’t match the literature, and the affs that scare them are worse as PICs

We agree "Restrict" is to limit, but that’s a question of authority

"Restrictions" includes the scope of authority, but that doesn’t mean they put the president in handcuffs

Clear statement constrains authority

Lin 5 (Albert, Acting Professor of Law, University of California, Davis, School of Law. J.D., Boalt Hall School of Law, University of California, Berkeley 1996; M.P.P., Harvard University 1995; B.S., Emory University 1992, "EROSIVE INTERPRETATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL LAW IN THE SUPREME COURT’S 2003-04 TERM" Summer, 2005, 42 Hous. L. Rev. 565) 

Perhaps the most significant federalism decision, from the vantage point of federal environmental law
AND
rule is likely to result in a contraction of federal regulatory authority. n347

Their new definition later in the 1nc means no court affs

"On" means there’s no limits disad

Dictionary.com, http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/on
On
preposition
1.so as to be or remain supported by or suspended from: Put your package down on the table; Hang your coat on the hook.
2.so as to be attached to or unified with: Hang the picture on the wall. Paste the label on the package.

Resolutional precision filters the T debate— it’s a legal topic and legal education is the point

Functional limits check – agent CP’s and authority key warrants are built-in for the neg

They mix burdens – circumvention means we wouldn’t be T – moots the core question in the res

Reasonability

1AR

Statutory grounds

Stephenson 8 (Matthew, Assistant Professor, Harvard Law School, "The Price of Public Action: Constitutional Doctrine and the Judicial Manipulation of Legislative Enactment Costs" October, 2008, 118 Yale L.J. 2) 

The third argument in favor of constitutionally derived clear statement rules appeals to a kind
AND
and authority and to limit conflict with the other branches of government. n88

The constitution is deliberately vague regarding sources of war power authority—their calls for "precision" are historically imprecise—err aff, to effectively restrict the four topic areas, we require flexibility to effect all authority within that limited silo

Graham Dodds, Ph.D., Concordia professor of political science, 2013, Take Up Your Pen: Unilateral Presidential Directives in American Politics, p. 50-2

Fifth, maybe the framers were intentionally vague in Article II because they did not
AND
the U.S. constitutional order in the office of the president. 

Otherwise, the aff loses every debate on circumvention

Graham Dodds, Ph.D., Concordia professor of political science, 2013, Take Up Your Pen: Unilateral Presidential Directives in American Politics, p. 33-4

While the vesting clause is perhaps the most plausible constitutional warrant for broad executive powers
AND
these matters, he may perhaps legitimately issue unilateral directives to that effect.
In addition to the vesting and "take care" clauses, Article II has
AND
presidential directives that are not closely related to military matters or national security.
Article II also notes that the president "may require the opinion, in writing
AND
offer a clear constitutional basis for a broad range of unilateral presidential directives.
Last but not least, Article II also contains the presidential oath of office:
AND
or at least extraconstitutional) yet necessary to preserve the larger constitutional order:
I have never understood that the presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act
AND
permit the wreck of the government, country and Constitution all together. 15
This oath-based rationale may justify significant powers for the executive in times of dire emergency, but it does not clearly support unilateral presidential directives in less exigent circumstances.
When read expansively, each of the above constitutional resources offers some rationale for considerable
AND
important potential source of constitutional justification for unilateral presidential directives and other practices.
The Constitution is not the only source for or justification of presidential power, as
AND
all executive orders, so even this basis for executive orders has shortcomings.