Tournament: Ndt | Round: Doubles | Opponent: West Georgia Ard-Muhammad | Judge: Cram Helwich, Garrett, Green, Mulholand, Topp
1AC

The rhetoric and ideology surrounding Obama’s war powers discussions are steeped in militaristic ideology based on an ever-expanding and pernicious notion of just war
Reeves and May ’13 (Joshua Reeves, Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Memphis in Tennessee, and Matthew S. May, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric in the Department of Communication Studies at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, “The Peace Rhetoric of a War President: Barack Obama and the Just War Legacy,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs Volume 16, Number 4, Winter 2013)

In this public climate … the cause of peace.17

Obama’s use of just war ideology places humanity in a constant war with itself.  Just war will always be interpreted to brutalize those who can’t assimilate to exceptionalist culture in the paradoxical war for peace
Reeves and May ’13 (Joshua Reeves, Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Memphis in Tennessee, and Matthew S. May, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric in the Department of Communication Studies at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, “The Peace Rhetoric of a War President: Barack Obama and the Just War Legacy,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs Volume 16, Number 4, Winter 2013)

After Augustine the …whole world as war-space. 

That brutalizing impulse is the result of a self-other dualism that is the root cause of all forms of political violence – only non-violence as a political strategy can spill over to combat cycles of oppression
Hongyu Wang, Ph.d., Professor, STCL - Curriculum Studies, 2014, “A Nonviolent Perspective on Internationalizing Curriculum Studies,” International Handbook of Curriculum Research, Ch. 5 Routledge

Affirming the human …have rippling effects.

Discourse is a crucial sight of intervention – Obama uses it as a mechanism for legitimizing violence under the law and paving the way for new interventionism under a veneer of morality
Reeves and May ’13 (Joshua Reeves, Assistant Professor of Communication at the University of Memphis in Tennessee, and Matthew S. May, Assistant Professor of Rhetoric in the Department of Communication Studies at North Carolina State University in Raleigh, “The Peace Rhetoric of a War President: Barack Obama and the Just War Legacy,” Rhetoric and Public Affairs Volume 16, Number 4, Winter 2013)

 For example, Obama …economy of “peace.”78 

Thus,       and I affirm: The United States federal government should not use violent strategies of governance.

Questioning the use of just war is the only way to interrupt the political machinery that construes legitimate violence, otherwise we cede agency to war planners
Andrew Fiala, assistant professor of philosophy and humanistic studies at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay, 2004, “Citizenship, Epistemology, and the Just War Theory,” Logos: A Journal of Catholic Thought and Culture 7.2 (2004) 100-117 

Patriotism, Protest, and Civil Disobedience
One might object …heir own moral consciences. 

Active resistance is key – merely recognizing exceptionalist oppression enforces a cycle of victimage and ressentiment that creates vengeful politics
Enns 12
Professor of Philosophy at McMaster University (Dianne, The Violence of Victimhood, 28-30)

Guilt and Ressentiment We need to think carefully … this third outcome.

Shifting the terrain of political discourse from militarism to nonviolence falls in the hands of intellectuals and debaters – the process of criticism is key to fostering resistance
John C. Landreau, The College of New Jersey, 2011, “Obamas My Dad: Mixed Race Suspects, Political Anxiety and the New Imperialism,” thirdspace: a journal of feminist theory and culture, Vol 10, No 1 (2011)

Obama's national security …share the world. 

It’s try or die – ideologies of violence are destroying academic spaces of resistance and enforcing militarized knowledge production – radical pedagogy is impossible without exposing the spectacles of exceptionalist violence
Henry A. Giroux, Global TV Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, 2012, “The Post-9/11 Militarization of Higher Education and the Popular Culture of Depravity: Threats to the Future of American Democracy,” RISE - International Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 27-53) 

As higher education … depravity of aesthetics.

To be clear, nonviolence is not the only strategy for resistance, nor is it always possible, but introducing it as a thought experiment in debates over resistance to the state is indispensible to the development of educational spaces contra oppressive ideology.  The process is key – myopic pedagogies impose artificial limits on knowledge and glorify violence
Hongyu Wang, Ph.d., Professor, STCL - Curriculum Studies, 2014, “A Nonviolent Perspective on Internationalizing Curriculum Studies,” International Handbook of Curriculum Research, Ch. 5 Routledge

By defining the … education mat I review next.

Prefer our specific point of intervention – politics rooted in the abstract affirmation difference produces political ambivalence, passivity, and recreates hierarchy
Thomas Nail, Post-doctoral Lecturer in European Philosophy at the University of Denver, 2013, Deleuze, Occupy, and the Actuality of Revolution, Theory and Event Volume 16, Issue 1

(1) Political Ambivalence
“Affirming Difference in … creative life or thought” (2006, 163).

Exclusive truth regimes destroy resistance – embracing the possibility of collective resistance is key to challenge violent normative assumptions
Anderson ‘6
Amanda, prof of English at Johns Hopkins, The Way We Argue Now, 33-6, EBSCO

In some ways, … condemnations and approvals.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: Doubles | Opponent: West Georgia Ard-Muhammad | Judge: Cram Helwich, Garrett, Green, Mulholand, Topp
The affirmatives questioning of militarization is productive and should be affirmed in this space – rejecting the aff cedes the game to exceptionalism
Henry A. Giroux, Global TV Network Chair in English and Cultural Studies at McMaster University, 2012, “The Post-9/11 Militarization of Higher Education and the Popular Culture of Depravity: Threats to the Future of American Democracy,” RISE - International Journal of Sociology of Education, 1(1), 27-53) 

Higher education should … from the military. 

The oppositional nature of our two political strategies proves the perm is the best option
Kathleen Higgins, University of Texas-Austin, Philosophy Professor, Winter 2013, Post-Truth Pluralism: The Unlikely Political Wisdom of Friedrich Nietzche, Kindle

Progressives are right ..,. action in the World.

There is no libidinal economy – they’re reading 19th century “science”
Victoroff 5, department of neurology and psychiatry, University of Southern California School of Medicine
(Jeff, http://srliebel.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/victoroff-jocr-2005.pdf)

Psychoanalysis is based … and absolutist thinking. 

Positive political strategies are important
Wilderson 10
Frank b. Wilderson III, Prof at UC Irvine, speaking on a panel on literary activism at the National Black Writers Conference, March 26, 2010, "Panel on Literary Activism", transcribed from the video available at http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/id/222448, begins at roughly 49:10

Typically what I mean when I … its organizational capacity. 

Anti-blackness isn’t inherent or ontological—it’s historically contingent and hence able to change
Hudson, professor of political studies – University of the Witwatersrand, ‘13
(Peter, “The state and the colonial unconscious,” Social Dynamics: A journal of African studies
Vol. 39, Issue 2, p. 263-277)

Thus the self-same/other … a determinate identity.

Liberatory violence against antiblackness is political masochism that relies on incorrect assumptions of political subjectivity, causes massive anxiety, and is a terrible basis for ethics
B.K. Jha, Reader in Political Science Magadh University, Bodh Gaya, 1988, “Fanon’s Theory of Violence: A Critique,” The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 49, No. 3, July - September, 1988

To begin with, though …too hopelessly unrevolutionary.

Alt fails and causes genocidal backlash
Emery 7, Phd, (Kathy, “ The Limits of Violent Resistance,”  For the Western Edition, August 27, 2007 http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Emery/westernedition/Sept07WestEd.pdf) 

The August 15th … suicidal Pickett’s Charge, if you will. 

Their rev gets crushed
Flaherty 5
http://cryptogon.com/docs/pirate_insurgency.html
USC BA in International Relations, researcher in political affairs, activist and organic farmer in New Zealand

 In order to understand the national security implications of militant electronic piracy, an examination of conventional insurgency against the American Corporate State is necessary.

THE NATURE OF …The ACS wins again.  

The alt aestheticizes violence – leads to a self-fulfilling prophecy of opposition rather than focusing on the factors that produce the need for radical politics
Simon Swift, Ph.d., Senior Lecturer in Critical and Cultural Theory, University of Leeds, 2013 “Hannah Arendt, violence and vitality,” European Journal of Social Theory 16(3) 357–376

A key aspect of … left with nothing but their wealth’ (Arendt, 1968: 4).

Reject their identity based focus – struggles for political power in the name of narrow goals sanitizes the desire for dominance and arrests the alts radical potential.  The thought experiment of stepping back to examine the international level and interconnectedness of political violence is key to deconstruct self-other dualisms
Hongyu Wang, Ph.d., Professor, STCL - Curriculum Studies, 2014, “A Nonviolent Perspective on Internationalizing Curriculum Studies,” International Handbook of Curriculum Research, Ch. 5 Routledge

In the first edition … support nonviolent relationality.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: Doubles | Opponent: West Georgia Ard-Muhammad | Judge: Cram Helwich, Garrett, Green, Mulholand, Topp
Daulatzai buries and essentializes Muslim history – no coherent link argument
Plummer ’13 (Brenda Gayle Plummer, University of Wisconsin–Madison, “Reviews: Sohail Daulatzai , Black Star, Crescent Moon: The Muslim International and Black Freedom beyond America,” Journal of American Studies / Volume 47 / Issue 03 / , pp 839-840) \

Malcolm X and the …the “universal” religions.

It’s bunk research, orientalist, and their use of islam for competitive gains turns the case.
Johnson ‘13
Ian, Independent Scholar and Foreign Correspondent, “Sohail Daulatzai, Black Star Crescent Moon: The Muslim International and Black Freedom beyond America.,” Journal of Cold War Studies Volume 15, Number 2, Spring 2013

This is a fun book … wisdom and daring.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 1 | Opponent: MSU CZ | Judge: Forslund, Mosley-Jensen, Hardy

Plan

The United States Federal Government should restrict the Executive’s war powers authority for targeted killing as a first resort outside zones of active hostilities.

CT

The plan is key to prevent collapse of the drone program
Zenko 13 (Micah Zenko is the Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at the Harvard Kennedy School and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution, Congressional Research Service, and State Department’s Office of Policy Planning, Council Special Report No. 65, January 2013, "U.S. Drone Strike Policies", i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Drones_CSR65.pdf?)

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama declared: "Where force
AND
if the United States modified its drone policy in the ways suggested below. 

Europe will end coop – that destroys CT effectiveness
Cullis 14 (Tyler Cullis, BU Law School, specializes in international law. His work has been featured at CNN’s Global Public Square, Muftah, Opinio Juris, and his personal blog, News From The Gutter., 2/28/2014, "Europe Shows Resistance to US Drone Policies", www.lobelog.com/europe-shows-resistance-to-us-drone-policies/)

Earlier this week the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the US drone program and
AND
, could become untenable in the face of near-unanimous global opposition.
The resolution, which is non-binding as a matter of European law,
AND
Special Rapporteurs last year (whose work is cited in the resolution itself).
This also comes on the heels of a New York Times report that the US
AND
resolution, thus takes on added significance in the wake of this report.
More importantly, the resolution signals to other EU bodies that now is the time
AND
for victims~." Both have thus far largely been barred in European courts.
Such would spell serious trouble for the United States and its continued ability to conduct
AND
killings" has begun to overcome Europe’s squeamishness about upsetting its powerful ally.
This week also saw the respected British human rights organization, Reprieve, submit a
AND
growing outcry against the US’ drone policies shows no signs of losing steam.

Only the plan solves allied backlash
Dworkin 12
Anthony Dworkin is a Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, European Council on Foreign Relations, June 19, 2012, "Obama’s Drone Attacks: How the EU Should Respond", http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_obamas_drone_attacks_how_the_eu_should_respond

Obama’s Concession to European Views
In a speech on the subject last autumn, Obama’s chief counter-terrorism advisor
AND
) to govern the use of targeted killing of non-state fighters.

Drones solve safe havens – prevents a terrorist attack
Johnston 12 (Patrick B. Johnston is an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution. He is the author of "Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns," published in International Security (Spring 2012)., 8/22/2012, "Drone Strikes Keep Pressure on al-Qaida", www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/drone-strikes-keep-pressure-on-al-qaida.html)

Should the U.S. continue to strike at al-Qaida’s leadership with
AND
bin Laden did in Afghanistan in 1996, after his ouster from Sudan.

Drones are operationally effective and alternatives are worse—establishing a clear strike policy solves criticism.   
Byman 13 (Daniel Byman, Brookings Institute Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Research Director, and Foreign Policy, Senior Fellow, July/Aug 2013, "Why Drones Work: The Case for the Washington’s Weapon of Choice", www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/06/17-drones-obama-weapon-choice-us-counterterrorism-byman)

Despite President Barack Obama’s recent call to reduce the United States’ reliance on drones,
AND
indiscriminately bomb civilian areas or use scorched-earth tactics against militant groups. 

Otherwise a nuclear terror attack is inevitable
Tobey 14 (William Tobey is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Major General Pavel Zolotarev is a retired member of the Russian Armed Forces and deputy director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences., 1/13/2014, "The Nuclear Terrorism Threat", belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/nuclearterrorismthreatthailand2014.pdf)

A joint U.S.-Russian View q? First ever U.S
AND
at risk Insecure nuclear material anywhere is a threat to everyone, everywhere. 

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-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. 

Causes US-Russia miscalc—extinction
Barrett et al. 13—PhD in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon
AND
and Nonproliferation Initiatives, Volume 21, Issue 2, Taylor 26 Francis)

War involving significant fractions of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals,
AND
making one or both nations more likely to misinterpret events as attacks. 16

Norms

Unrestrained drone use outside zones of active hostilities collapses legal norms governing targeted killing – only the plan solves
Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation, 4/23/13, The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing, http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/04-23-13BrooksTestimony.pdf

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to the legal framework applicable
AND
them to justify the killing of dissidents, rivals, or unwanted minorities?

That solves global war – US precedent is key
Roberts 13 (Kristen, news editor for the National Journal, master in security studies from Georgetown, "When the Whole World Has Drones", 3/22/2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321-http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321)

The proliferation of drone technology has moved well beyond the control of the United States
AND
operations manual for other nations but a legal and moral one as well.

The plan’s norm is key to solve Chinese 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 solves miscalculation and war in the South and East China Seas
Brimley 13 (Shawn Brimley, Ben FitzGerald, and Ely Ratner are, respectively, vice president, director of the Technology and National Security Program, and deputy director of the Asia Program at the Center for a New American Security., 9/17/2013, "The Drone War Comes to Asia", www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/17/the_drone_war_comes_to_asia)

It’s now been a year since Japan’s previously ruling liberal government purchased three of the
AND
political leadership, these technologies could very well lead the region into war.
It escalates – their defense is wrong
Auslin 13 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 11/5/2013, "Tensions Are Escalating in the East China Sea", online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579178850122997242)

The East China Sea may see the world’s first war started by aerial drones.
AND
will back down, becoming more resentful of today’s international system than before.  

SCS conflict causes extinction
Wittner 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany, Wittner is the author of eight books, the editor or co-editor of another four, and the author of over 250 published articles and book reviews. From 1984 to 1987, he edited Peace 26 Change, a journal of peace research., 11/28/2011, "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?",  www.huntingtonnews.net/14446-http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446)

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used.
AND
—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. 

Senkaku conflict causes extinction
Baker 12 (Kevin R., Member of the Compensation Committee of Calfrac, Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Century Oilfield Services Inc. from August 2005 until November 10, 2009, when it was acquired by the Corporation. He also has served as the President of Baycor Capital Inc., 9/17/2012, "What Would Happen if China and Japan Went to War?", http://appreviews4u.com/2012/09/17/what-would-happen-if-china-and-japan-went-to-war/)

China is not an isolationist country but it is quite nationalistic. Their allies include
AND
maybe 20 years at best, if there are ample supplies of course.

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
policymakers should perhaps devote a touch more attention to the precedent they’re setting.

Solvency

Status quo administration policy delineates between geographic zones, but our legal justification for war everywhere remains in place
Anthony Dworkin 13, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, "Drones And Targeted Killing: Defining A European Position", July, http://ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR84_DRONES_BRIEF.pdf-http://ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR84_DRONES_BRIEF.pdf

Two further points are worth noting. First, the administration has acknowledged that in
AND
to serve as a precedent for other states that wish to claim it.

Limiting the use of force as a first resort is critical to sustainable consensus-building on targeted killing standards
Jennifer Daskal, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, April 2013, ARTICLE: THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE BATTLEFIELD: A FRAMEWORK FOR DETENTION AND TARGETING OUTSIDE THE "HOT" CONFLICT ZONE, 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1165

Legal scholars, policymakers, and state actors are embroiled in a heated debate about
AND
, and foreign policy gains make acceptance of this framework a worthy endeavor.

Legal clarity is key to both advantages – only congress solves
Pritchard 3/18 (Llewelyn G. Pritchard, Chair of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, 3/18/2014, "Discussion Paper on the Legality of Drone Strikes Under International Law", www.cnss.org/data/files/War_Powers/ABA_CHRDiscussion_Paper_Drones_03_18.pdf)

The U.S. government has acknowledged concerns about its use of lethal drone
AND
drone strikes, must comply with these U.S. treaty obligations.  

Congressional restriction key to credibility and signal
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University, and Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Member of its Task Force on National Security and the Law, 5/11/2009, Targeted Killing in U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy and Law, http://www.brookings.edu/~~/media/research/files/papers/2009/5/1120counterterrorism20anderson/0511_counterterrorism_anderson.pdf

What Should Congress Do?
Does this analysis offer any practical policy prescriptions for Congress and the administration? The
AND
itself a certain deformation of the IHL concept of hostilities and armed conflict.

Only congressional action on the scope of hostilities sends a clear signal that the US abides by the laws of armed conflict
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University, and Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Member of its Task Force on National Security and the Law, 3/18/10, Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War, digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=100226context=pub_disc_cong

• First, the United States government urgently needs publicly to declare the legal rationale
AND
of their use, including both their use and their limits in law.

This is current administration policy, it just needs to be formalized
Jennifer Daskal, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, April 2013, ARTICLE: THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE BATTLEFIELD: A FRAMEWORK FOR DETENTION AND TARGETING OUTSIDE THE "HOT" CONFLICT ZONE, 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1165

One might be skeptical that a nation like the United States would ever accept such
AND
American citizen, the United States would have few principled grounds for objecting.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 3 | Opponent: UT Dallas Loehr-Ogbuli | Judge: Box, Stone, Whitmore

1ac

Plan

The United States Federal Government should restrict the Executive’s war powers authority for targeted killing as a first resort outside zones of active hostilities.

CT

Advantage 1: CT

The plan is key to prevent collapse of the drone program
Zenko 13 (Micah Zenko is the Douglas Dillon fellow in the Center for Preventive Action (CPA) at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). Previously, he worked for five years at the Harvard Kennedy School and in Washington, DC, at the Brookings Institution, Congressional Research Service, and State Department’s Office of Policy Planning, Council Special Report No. 65, January 2013, "U.S. Drone Strike Policies", i.cfr.org/content/publications/attachments/Drones_CSR65.pdf?)

In his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, President Obama declared: "Where force
AND
if the United States modified its drone policy in the ways suggested below. 

Europe will end coop – that destroys CT effectiveness
Cullis 14 (Tyler Cullis, BU Law School, specializes in international law. His work has been featured at CNN’s Global Public Square, Muftah, Opinio Juris, and his personal blog, News From The Gutter., 2/28/2014, "Europe Shows Resistance to US Drone Policies", www.lobelog.com/europe-shows-resistance-to-us-drone-policies/)

Earlier this week the European Parliament passed a resolution condemning the US drone program and
AND
, could become untenable in the face of near-unanimous global opposition.
The resolution, which is non-binding as a matter of European law,
AND
Special Rapporteurs last year (whose work is cited in the resolution itself).
This also comes on the heels of a New York Times report that the US
AND
resolution, thus takes on added significance in the wake of this report.
More importantly, the resolution signals to other EU bodies that now is the time
AND
for victims~." Both have thus far largely been barred in European courts.
Such would spell serious trouble for the United States and its continued ability to conduct
AND
killings" has begun to overcome Europe’s squeamishness about upsetting its powerful ally.
This week also saw the respected British human rights organization, Reprieve, submit a
AND
growing outcry against the US’ drone policies shows no signs of losing steam.

Only the plan solves allied backlash
Dworkin 12
Anthony Dworkin is a Senior Policy Fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, European Council on Foreign Relations, June 19, 2012, "Obama’s Drone Attacks: How the EU Should Respond", http://ecfr.eu/content/entry/commentary_obamas_drone_attacks_how_the_eu_should_respond

Obama’s Concession to European Views
In a speech on the subject last autumn, Obama’s chief counter-terrorism advisor
AND
) to govern the use of targeted killing of non-state fighters.

Drones solve safe havens – prevents a terrorist attack
Johnston 12 (Patrick B. Johnston is an associate political scientist at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institution. He is the author of "Does Decapitation Work? Assessing the Effectiveness of Leadership Targeting in Counterinsurgency Campaigns," published in International Security (Spring 2012)., 8/22/2012, "Drone Strikes Keep Pressure on al-Qaida", www.rand.org/blog/2012/08/drone-strikes-keep-pressure-on-al-qaida.html)

Should the U.S. continue to strike at al-Qaida’s leadership with
AND
bin Laden did in Afghanistan in 1996, after his ouster from Sudan.

Drones are operationally effective and alternatives are worse—establishing a clear strike policy solves criticism.   
Byman 13 (Daniel Byman, Brookings Institute Saban Center for Middle East Policy, Research Director, and Foreign Policy, Senior Fellow, July/Aug 2013, "Why Drones Work: The Case for the Washington’s Weapon of Choice", www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2013/06/17-drones-obama-weapon-choice-us-counterterrorism-byman)

Despite President Barack Obama’s recent call to reduce the United States’ reliance on drones,
AND
indiscriminately bomb civilian areas or use scorched-earth tactics against militant groups. 

Otherwise a nuclear terror attack is inevitable
Tobey 14 (William Tobey is a senior fellow at Harvard University’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs. Major General Pavel Zolotarev is a retired member of the Russian Armed Forces and deputy director of the Institute for U.S. and Canadian Studies of the Russian Academy of Sciences., 1/13/2014, "The Nuclear Terrorism Threat", belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/nuclearterrorismthreatthailand2014.pdf)

A joint U.S.-Russian View q? First ever U.S
AND
at risk Insecure nuclear material anywhere is a threat to everyone, everywhere. 

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-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. 

Causes US-Russia miscalc—extinction
Barrett et al. 13—PhD in Engineering and Public Policy from Carnegie Mellon
AND
and Nonproliferation Initiatives, Volume 21, Issue 2, Taylor 26 Francis)

War involving significant fractions of the U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals,
AND
making one or both nations more likely to misinterpret events as attacks. 16

Norms

Advantage 2: Norms

Unrestrained drone use outside zones of active hostilities collapses legal norms governing targeted killing – only the plan solves
Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation, 4/23/13, The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing, http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/04-23-13BrooksTestimony.pdf

Mr. Chairman, I would like to turn now to the legal framework applicable
AND
them to justify the killing of dissidents, rivals, or unwanted minorities?

That solves global war – US precedent is key
Roberts 13 (Kristen, news editor for the National Journal, master in security studies from Georgetown, "When the Whole World Has Drones", 3/22/2013, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321-http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/when-the-whole-world-has-drones-20130321)

The proliferation of drone technology has moved well beyond the control of the United States
AND
operations manual for other nations but a legal and moral one as well.

The plan’s norm is key to solve Chinese 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 solves miscalculation and war in the South and East China Seas
Brimley 13 (Shawn Brimley, Ben FitzGerald, and Ely Ratner are, respectively, vice president, director of the Technology and National Security Program, and deputy director of the Asia Program at the Center for a New American Security., 9/17/2013, "The Drone War Comes to Asia", www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/09/17/the_drone_war_comes_to_asia)

It’s now been a year since Japan’s previously ruling liberal government purchased three of the
AND
political leadership, these technologies could very well lead the region into war.
It escalates – their defense is wrong
Auslin 13 (Michael Auslin is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, 11/5/2013, "Tensions Are Escalating in the East China Sea", online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303482504579178850122997242)

The East China Sea may see the world’s first war started by aerial drones.
AND
will back down, becoming more resentful of today’s international system than before.  

SCS conflict causes extinction
Wittner 11 (Lawrence S. Wittner, Emeritus Professor of History at the State University of New York/Albany, Wittner is the author of eight books, the editor or co-editor of another four, and the author of over 250 published articles and book reviews. From 1984 to 1987, he edited Peace 26 Change, a journal of peace research., 11/28/2011, "Is a Nuclear War With China Possible?",  www.huntingtonnews.net/14446-http://www.huntingtonnews.net/14446)

While nuclear weapons exist, there remains a danger that they will be used.
AND
—destroying agriculture, creating worldwide famine, and generating chaos and destruction. 

Senkaku conflict causes extinction
Baker 12 (Kevin R., Member of the Compensation Committee of Calfrac, Chair of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Century Oilfield Services Inc. from August 2005 until November 10, 2009, when it was acquired by the Corporation. He also has served as the President of Baycor Capital Inc., 9/17/2012, "What Would Happen if China and Japan Went to War?", http://appreviews4u.com/2012/09/17/what-would-happen-if-china-and-japan-went-to-war/)

China is not an isolationist country but it is quite nationalistic. Their allies include
AND
maybe 20 years at best, if there are ample supplies of course.

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
policymakers should perhaps devote a touch more attention to the precedent they’re setting.

Solvency

Solvency

Status quo administration policy delineates between geographic zones, but our legal justification for war everywhere remains in place
Anthony Dworkin 13, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations, "Drones And Targeted Killing: Defining A European Position", July, http://ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR84_DRONES_BRIEF.pdf-http://ecfr.eu/page/-/ECFR84_DRONES_BRIEF.pdf

Two further points are worth noting. First, the administration has acknowledged that in
AND
to serve as a precedent for other states that wish to claim it.

Limiting the use of force as a first resort is critical to sustainable consensus-building on targeted killing standards
Jennifer Daskal, Fellow and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown Center on National Security and the Law, Georgetown University Law Center, April 2013, ARTICLE: THE GEOGRAPHY OF THE BATTLEFIELD: A FRAMEWORK FOR DETENTION AND TARGETING OUTSIDE THE "HOT" CONFLICT ZONE, 161 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1165

Legal scholars, policymakers, and state actors are embroiled in a heated debate about
AND
, and foreign policy gains make acceptance of this framework a worthy endeavor.

Legal clarity is key to both advantages – only congress solves
Pritchard 3/18 (Llewelyn G. Pritchard, Chair of the American Bar Association Center for Human Rights, 3/18/2014, "Discussion Paper on the Legality of Drone Strikes Under International Law", www.cnss.org/data/files/War_Powers/ABA_CHRDiscussion_Paper_Drones_03_18.pdf)

The U.S. government has acknowledged concerns about its use of lethal drone
AND
drone strikes, must comply with these U.S. treaty obligations.  

Congressional restriction key to credibility and signal
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University, and Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Member of its Task Force on National Security and the Law, 5/11/2009, Targeted Killing in U.S. Counterterrorism Strategy and Law, http://www.brookings.edu/~~/media/research/files/papers/2009/5/1120counterterrorism20anderson/0511_counterterrorism_anderson.pdf

What Should Congress Do?
Does this analysis offer any practical policy prescriptions for Congress and the administration? The
AND
itself a certain deformation of the IHL concept of hostilities and armed conflict.

Only congressional action on the scope of hostilities sends a clear signal that the US abides by the laws of armed conflict
Kenneth Anderson, Professor of Law, Washington College of Law, American University, and Research Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University and Member of its Task Force on National Security and the Law, 3/18/10, Rise of the Drones: Unmanned Systems and the Future of War, digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=100226context=pub_disc_cong

• First, the United States government urgently needs publicly to declare the legal rationale
AND
of their use, including both their use and their limits in law.

2ac

AT: Legislation Bad—Signing Statements

Obama won’t issue a signing statement
Harvard Law Review, June 2012, DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW — PRESIDENTIAL AUTHORITY: II. The President’s Role in the Legislative Process, 125 Harv. L. Rev. 2068, Lexis

5. The Obama Administration: Reining in the Use of Signing Statements. -
AND
to comply until such goals could be met through the legislative process. n119

2AC AT: Circumvention

No impact – all of our advantages are based on the signal of codification – actual practice is irrelevant.
Circumvention is based on a misunderstanding of zones of active hostilities
Anderson 11 (Kenneth Anderson is a professor of international law at Washington College of
AND
sites/default/files/documents/FutureChallenges_Anderson.pdf)

That "legal geography" could be proposed in different ways. One is found
AND
"global" with respect to the application of the laws of war. 

Sig Strikes

The plan standard restricts targeted killing operations—that logically includes signature strikes
Alston, U.N. Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary, or Arbitrary Executions, 5/28/2010
(Philip, "Study on Targeted Killings," U.N. General Assembly, Human Rights Council, Fourteenth Session, http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/14session/A.HRC.14.24.Add6.pdf)

A. Definition of "targeted killing"
7. Despite the frequency with which it is invoked, "targeted killing" is not a term defined under international law. Nor does it fit neatly into any particular legal framework. It came into common usage in 2000, after Israel made public a policy of "targeted killings" of alleged terrorists in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.1 The term has also been used in other situations, such as:
• The April 2002 killing, allegedly by Russian armed forces, of "rebel warlord" Omar Ibn al Khattab in Chechnya.2
• The November 2002 killing of alleged al Qaeda leader Ali Qaed Senyan al-Harithi and five other men in Yemen, reportedly by a CIA-operated Predator drone using a Hellfire missile.3
• Killings in 2005 – 2008 by both Sri Lankan government forces and the opposition LTTE group of individuals identified by each side as collaborating with the other.4
• The January 2010 killing, in an operation allegedly carried out by 18 Israeli Mossad intelligence agents, of Mahmoud al-Mahbouh, a Hamas leader, at a Dubai hotel.5 According to Dubai officials, al-Mahbouh was suffocated with a pillow; officials released videotapes of those responsible, whom they alleged to be Mossad agents.6
8. Targeted killings thus take place in a variety of contexts and may be committed by governments and their agents in times of peace as well as armed conflict, or by organized armed groups in armed conflict.7 The means and methods of killing vary, and include sniper fire, shooting at close range, missiles from helicopters, gunships, drones, the use of car bombs, and poison.8
9. The common element in all these contexts is that lethal force is intentionally
AND
of the operation, from its inception, should not be to kill.
10. Although in most circumstances targeted killings violate the right to life, in the exceptional circumstance of armed conflict, they may be legal.10 This is in contrast to other terms with which "targeted killing" has sometimes been interchangeably used, such as "extrajudicial execution", "summary execution", and "assassination", all of which are, by definition, illegal.11

2AC Bioterror

The plan sovles impending bioterror attacks – extinction
Mhyrvold ’13
Nathan, Began college at age 14, BS and Masters from UCLA, Masters and PhD, Princeton "Strategic Terrorism: A Call to Action," Working Draft, The Lawfare Research Paper Series
Research paper NO . 2 – 2013

As horrible as this would be, such a pandemic is by no means the
AND
be available to anybody with a solid background in biology, terrorists included.

LOAC

LOAC resilient and compartmentalized - violations against al Qaeda don’t spillover to interstate warfare
Posner 10
Eric Posner is a professor of Law at the University of Chicago, JOHN M. OLIN LAW 26 ECONOMICS WORKING PAPER NO. 537, September 2010, "Human Rights, the Laws of War, and Reciprocity", http://www.ericposner.com/Human20Rights,20the20Laws20of20War,20and20Reciprocity.pdf

I. The Laws of War
International humanitarian law, also known variously as the laws of war and jus in
AND
lasers, poison gas, and other weapons believed to be inhumane.9
Laws of war have always existed. In earlier times, they governed siege and
AND
give them a fair trial, and punish them if they were convicted.
The laws of war have a simple economic explanation. When two states go to
AND
are better off if POWs are protected than if they are killed.13
The problem of harsh tactics has the structure of the familiar prisoner’s dilemma, and
AND
violate the rules, the other state should violate the rules as well.
Putting aside cases where the laws of war require behavior that a state will engage
AND
that case, the disadvantaged party may refuse to comply with that rule.
Anecdotal evidence provides some support for these hypotheses.15 States have always selectively obeyed
AND
, and was abandoned on the American continent during the Seven Years War.
In the twentieth century, advances in the mechanization of warfare and the professionalization of armies rendered irrelevant old rules governing siege, prize, neutrality, and related matters.16 World War I saw extensive violation of these out-dated rules. Yet certain basic norms, such as the humane treatment of POWs, were respected.

 In World War II, these rules were respected on the western front but
AND
the occupier no longer fears retaliation by the defeated or nearly defeated enemy.
It should be clear that reprisal never really went away, at least in the
AND
deterrable, belligerents acted in reciprocal fashion rather than comply with the law.
In sum, reciprocity both explains why the laws of war are self-enforcing
AND
the only effective mechanism for ensuring that the laws were self-enforcing.

The plan is key to prevent LOAC collapse
Brooks 13 (Rosa Brooks, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law Center, Bernard L. Schwartz Senior Fellow, New America Foundation, 9/28/2013, "Duck-Rabbits and Drones: Legal Indeterminacy in the War on Terror", papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2336164)

"Our war on terror begins with Al Qaeda, but it does not end
AND
deciding whether, where, or to whom the law of war applies. 

2AC ASPEC

C/I-Federal government is the central government
Websters 76  New International Dictionary Unabridged, 1976, p. 833. 

Federal government. Of or relating to the central government of a nation, having the character of a federation as distinguished from the governments of the constituent unites (as states or provinces).

2AC War Powers

War power authority is irrelevant to adversary and ally calculations
Ganesh Sitaraman, Assistant Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, January 2014, Credibility and War Powers, www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1024.php~23_ftnref19

For all the talk of credibility, political scientists have offered devastating critiques of credibility
AND
In some cases, the threats were even thought to be more credible.
For constitutional lawyers, this research should be particularly troubling because credibility has migrated from
AND
of force expands the President’s war powers significantly without a legitimate policy justification.
I. Understanding Credibility As a justification for the use of military force, the
AND
together as "credibility arguments." B. The Logical Limits of Credibility Arguments
In the context of military threats and the use of force, credibility arguments suffer
AND
may ignore the Micronesian case because it is fundamentally different from their own.
Third, if we assume that credibility matters, then both sides know that it
AND
on ad infinitum, it is impossible to determine what policy to pursue.
C. Evidence from History
Credibility arguments could also be justified with real world evidence. For example, data could shed light on the manner of leaders’ credibility determinations: Do they actually pay attention to the disposition of the opponent based on their past actions? Or do they undertake a current calculus and focus on interests, capabilities, and the immediate situational context?
In a series of qualitative studies, political scientists have shown that past actions and
AND
.23 These findings therefore do not extend to all international issues.24
In the most extensive research on credibility theories, Professor Daryl Press reviewed thousands of
AND
their credibility, but because it allowed Germany to increase its power.25
From 1958 to 1961, the world watched a number of Berlin crises unfold between
AND
that British and American leaders almost never mentioned Khrushchev’s record of bluffing.27
In an important book on reputation, Mercer analyzed the crises leading up to World
AND
expect past action theories of credibility to be most powerful at explaining behavior.
Looking specifically at military actions justified by credibility arguments, political scientists have also provided
AND
see United States withdrawal as decreasing American credibility in the Cold War.33
Partisanship triggers the war powers link
Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and a member of the Hoover Foreign Policy Working Group on Grand Strategy, 3/10/14,  American Power Is Waning Because Washington Won’t Stop Quarreling, www.newrepublic.com/article/116953/american-power-decline-due-partisanship-washington

However, I do believe that the political discount rate that translates economic strength into
AND
Republican-Democrat polarization; rather, the cleavages run through both parties.
What is different now is a much more poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington, which sees virtually any policy issue as an arena for political combat and point-scoring. This means that Congress is much less willing to delegate discretion to the executive branch on foreign policy, and makes the president in turn preemptively cautious in exercising power.
There are two recent cases of this: the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi
AND
diplomatic security as the first priority of U.S. regional policy.
Similarly, the bill currently before the Senate setting forth in great detail the terms
AND
. But this is a very poor way to proceed in a negotiation.
The net effect of political polarization has been to shift control over foreign policy back from the president to Congress in much the same manner as in arguments over Vietnam in the 1970s and Central America in the 1980s. This reduces executive discretion and increases the effective political discount rate.

2AC Pacifism

Util’s the only moral framework
Murray 97 (Alastair, Professor of Politics at U. Of Wales-Swansea, Reconstructing Realism, p. 110)

Weber emphasised that, while the ’absolute ethic of the gospel’ must be taken seriously
AND
underlying this doctrine ’leads to the negation of absolute ethical judgements altogether’.13  

Quality of life is skyrocketing worldwide by all measures
Ridley, visiting professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, former science editor of The Economist, and award-winning science writer, 2010
(Matt, The Rational Optimist, pg. 13-15)
If my fictional family is not to your taste, perhaps you prefer statistics.
AND
was reduced more in the last fifty years than in the previous 500.  

Pacifism alternative fails—-too optimistic and speculative
Brian Orend 6, Director of International Studies, and a Professor of Philosophy, at the University of Waterloo in Canada, "The Morality of War", Broadview Press, Google Books, p. 263
Summary¶ The goal of this chapter was to discuss and evaluate the pacifist alternative
AND
prospects, in our rough- and-tumble world, seem promising.

2AC Soft Law

Perm do the CP—the CP is a way to restrict war power authority
Lexis, 2007, http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/cu/Serial_Set/About_Bills.htm~~23pub
Public laws result from the passage of public bills or joint resolutions that affect the
AND
, receives a two-thirds vote overriding the veto in each Chamber.

Lexis, 2007, About Joint Resolutions, http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/cu/Serial_Set/About_Bills.htm~~23joi-http://www.lexisnexis.com/help/cu/Serial_Set/About_Bills.htm
A joint resolution, H.J. Res. or S.J. Res., is a legislative proposal that requires the approval of both Chambers and the signature of the President, just as a bill does, in order to have the force of law.

Links to politics
Jacob Gerson, U. Chicago Ast. Professor Law, Eric Posner, U. Chicago Law Professor, December 2008, Article: Soft Law: Lessons from Congressional Practice, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 573

But why is Congress’s statement credible? Maybe Congress does not really mean that it
AND
or other military interventions would do well to take note of the resolution.

Hard law is key to legal certainty—accesses all of the reasons congress is key
Gregory Shaffer, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, and Mark Pollack, Professor of Political Science and Jean Monnet Chair, Temple University., Sept 2011, ARTICLE: HARD VERSUS SOFT LAW IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 52 B.C. L. Rev 1147

To effect specific policy goals, state and private actors increasingly turn to legal instruments
AND
the implications of the interaction of hard and soft law on each other.
Hard law as an institutional form features a number of advantages. n80 Hard law
AND
are great but the potential for opportunism and its costs are high." n85

The CP delegitimizes the plan’s norm
Gregory Shaffer, Professor of Law, University of Minnesota Law School, and Mark Pollack, Professor of Political Science and Jean Monnet Chair, Temple University., Sept 2011, ARTICLE: HARD VERSUS SOFT LAW IN INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, 52 B.C. L. Rev 1147

As we have observed in our previous scholarship, the existing analyses of hard and
AND
has become like a camera whose every shot is a double exposure." n112
Yet the literature has yet to assess systematically the conditions under which actors are likely to deploy hard and soft law as antagonists  ~*1167~  instead of complements. What we need, in this respect, is to build a conditional theory of international law. n113
The perception of mutual gain is certainly an important prerequisite for international cooperation. Yet
AND
we are likely to see hard and soft law often interacting as antagonists.

2ac Iran

No Israeli strike regardless of deal collapse
Keck 11/28/13
Zachary, associate editor of The Diplomat, "Five Reasons Israel Won’t Attack Iran," http://nationalinterest.org/print/commentary/five-reasons-israel-wont-attack-iran-9469

Although not a member of the P5+1 itself, Israel has always loomed
AND
IDF and the head of Mossad had led to military action being stopped."

Sanctions push will be in response to deal collapse, not the plan
Rebecca Shabad, The Hill, 3/18/14, Congress fires warning shot at Iran, thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/201074-83-senators-outline-preferred-requirements-for

More than two-thirds of the Senate and nearly 400 House members on Tuesday
AND
. "We need to work together now to prepare for either eventuality." 

If Obama is focusing capital on _¬¬¬¬_, it disproves Obama would initiate a fight over the plan
William Howell and Jon Pevehouse, Associate Professors at the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, 2007, When Congress Stops Wars, Foreign Affairs, EBSCO

After all, when presidents anticipate congressional resistance they will not be able to overcome
AND
Pace, so as to avoid a clash with Congress over his reappointment.

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.

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.

1ar

impact

.

No escalation
Yadlin October ’13
Amos Yadlin Maj. Gen. (ret.) is the Director of INSS,  From 2006-2010, Maj. Gen. (ret.) Yadlin served as the IDF’s chief of Defense Intelligence. From 2004-2006, he served as the IDF attaché to the United States. In February 2002, he earned the rank of major general and was named commander of the IDF Military Colleges and the National Defense College, and Avner Golov, research
assistant to the Director of INSS, "If Attacked, How Would Iran Respond?," Strategic Assessment
 | Volume 16 | No. 3 | October 2013

Assessment of the Iranian Response Strategy
There are two signi?cant parameters for assessing an Iranian response. The ?rst concerns the
AND
main interest of the regime of the ayatollahs is to preserve their power.

 Therefore, it seems that they would not carry out an action that is
AND
the start of the crisis this is a scenario with very low probability.

Iran won’t supply terrorists – fear of retaliation and no strategic value
Roth, associate director, national security studies – Johns Hopkins, 11/24/’9
(Ariel Ilan, "The Root of All Fears," Foreign Affairs)

Nor would Iran readily supply Hezbollah with atomic weapons. No nuclear state has ever
AND
on Israel, in other words, would mean the end of Iran.
Although many analysts question the rationality of the Iranian regime, it is in fact
AND
spread its ideology without the constant worry of regime change imposed from abroad.

*cp

do the cp

That a way to restrict war power authority
Patrick D. Robbins, 1988 (The American University Law Review, Fall 1988, "THE WAR POWERS RESOLUTION AFTER FIFTEEN YEARS: A REASSESSMENT. *"  Retrieved 6/1/2013; Lexis/Nexis.

In its search for a more effective device with which to regulate the President,
AND
has developed funding measures that are simply not amenable to automatic cutoffs. n266

1ar hard law key

cp doesn’t solve congressional codification
Edward Swaine, Associate Professor, George Washington University Law School, 2010, The Political Economy of Youngstown, http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=101726context=faculty_publications-http://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=101726context=faculty_publications

Attaching legal consequence to non-statutory actions, or even inaction, is in
AND
power that "either has no beginning or it has no end."114

even if the cp signals congressional preference, it doesn’t access legal clarity or certainty
Jacob Gerson, U. Chicago Ast. Professor Law, Eric Posner, U. Chicago Law Professor, December 2008, Article: Soft Law: Lessons from Congressional Practice, 61 Stan. L. Rev. 573

The binding effect of hard law is its straightforward advantage over soft law, and
AND
question in Part IV.C. For now, consider two points.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge:
Plan: The United States Federal Government should statutorily restrict the 2001 Authorization for use of Military Force. 

1

Legal challenges to the AUMF will collapse the entire detention and targeted killing architecture – scrapping it results in statutory clarifications that restore sustainability
Robert Chesney 13, law prof at Texas, beyond the battlefield, beyond al qaeda: the destabilizing legal architecture of counterterrorism, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 112:163

The drawdown in Afghanistan, combined with the expansion of the shadow war model,
AND
instead increasingly be rooted in other locations, such as Yemen and Somalia.
It does not follow that LOAC will be irrelevant to future uses of detention or
AND
provides a good example of an area ripe for such an analysis.193
But even in those cases, the very nature of the shadow war approach is
AND
a borderless armed conflict governed by LOAC wherever the parties may be found.
The borderless-conflict position at first blush appears nicely entrenched in the status quo
AND
be the situation when new cases arise, as they surely will.195
Making matters worse, the U.S. government’s position on the relevance of
AND
provides a useful illustration, or perhaps more accurately, a cautionary tale.
Though widely perceived at the time as a period of great legal controversy and uncertainty
AND
/11 decade will witness far more serious legal disputes as a result.
IV.   Shifting the Legal Framework onto Firmer Footing
What if anything ought to be done in response to this looming legal instability?
AND
lives and no feasible opportunity for capturing rather than killing the target.198
At first blush these pronouncements give the impression that the legal issues identified above might
AND
, even if the number of new instances implicating them shrinks going forward.
With or without these changes, of course, the government might simply choose to
AND
brief discussion of proactive, realistic steps that the government might take instead.
A.   The Coming Wave of Judicial Intervention
The government will not be able to simply ride out the legal friction generated by the fragmentation of al Qaeda and the shift toward shadow war. Those trends do not merely shift unsettled questions of substantive law to the forefront of the debate; they also greatly increase the prospects for a new round of judicial intervention focusing on those substantive questions.

1.   Military Detention
   Consider military detention first. Fresh judicial intervention regarding the substantive law of detention is a virtual certainty. It will come in connection with the lingering Guantanamo population, and it will come as well in connection with any future detainees taken into custody on a long-term basis, regardless of where they might be held.
   a.   Existing Guantanamo Detainees
   Most of the existing Guantanamo detainees have already had a shot at habeas relief, and many lost on both the facts and the law. But some of them can and will pursue a second shot, should changing conditions call into question the legal foundation for the earlier rulings against them.202
   The first round of Guantanamo habeas decisions depended in almost every instance on the existence of a meaningful tie to ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan, as did the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Hamdi. Indeed, Justice O’Connor in Hamdi was at pains to caution that at some point in the future this baseline condition making LOAC relevant could unravel.203 The declining U.S. role in combat operations in Afghanistan goes directly to that point.
   This decline will open the door to a second wave of Guantanamo litigation, with
   AND
   trial until the end of the hostilities authorized by the ~AUMF~."206
   A court confronted with this language might interpret it in a manner consistent with the
   AND
   government might undertake in the same or similar contexts (including targeting measures).
   Regardless of what occurs in Afghanistan, the existing Guantanamo detainee population might also find
   AND
   challenge could lead a judge to weigh in on the organizational boundary question.
   b.   New Detainees
   The existing Guantanamo detainees are not the only ones who might require judges to address the increasingly difficult LOAC and organizational boundary issues. New detainees might do so as well.
   As the Warsame situation illustrated, the Obama Administration remains loath to bring new detainees
   AND
   review would turn in no small part on LOAC and organizational boundary issues.
   Might detainees be taken somewhere besides Guantanamo (or U.S. territory proper
   AND
   debate survived completion of the drawdown a few years before in Iraq.209
   Even if the DFIP did remain available, or if some other facility somehow could
   AND
   in 2012 or thereafter would quite likely produce a very different outcome.212
   2.   Lethal Force
   Lethal force is a different kettle of fish when it comes to the possibility of
   AND
   then, it will be pursuant to the second possibility: civil litigation.
   In 2010, the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights ("CCR") attempted
   AND
   imminent threat to life would violate both international law and the Constitution.215
   Ultimately, the district judge dismissed the suit on two primary grounds.216 First
   AND
   ultimately preclude litigation of the claims—without actually relying on it.219
   The ACLU and CCR did not appeal, perhaps mindful that doing so might simply result in a more authoritative and influential but equally hostile ruling from the court of appeals. And so the issue appeared to come to rest, with no realistic prospect that judges would ever engage the LOAC and organizational boundary issues in a use-of-force setting. It would not be prudent, however, to assume that this was the last word.
   In July 2012, the ACLU and CCR filed a new suit, this time
   AND
   to tip the scales against continued application of those threshold avoidance doctrines.221
   That is, of course, a speculative leap of some distance. But it
   AND
   of making a breakout into targeting jurisdiction conceptually less shocking and more plausible.
   B.   Options for Refining the Legal Architecture
   Are there realistic yet useful steps the government could take now, bearing in mind both the legal instability described above and the likelihood that those issues will be litigated? Or would it be wiser to simply stay the course, while continuing to defend the legal merits of current policy through public statements and preparing to do the same if and when litigation requires it? The Obama Administration has been focused on the latter approach.
   Building on the precedent of public engagement set by State Department Legal Adviser John Bellinger
   AND
   alter the legal status quo in a direction that might reduce that uncertainty.
   To be sure, the Obama Administration did ultimately sign into law the NDAA FY12
   AND
   In reference to the bill’s detention-related provisions, the SAP stated.
   Because the authorities codified in this section already exist, the Administration does not believe
   AND
   that could compromise our ability to protect the American people.22-1
   The SAP quite properly observes that affirmative steps to alter the status quo would carry
   AND
   close with a handful of preliminary suggestions, in hopes of informing further debate226
2.   Clarifying the Enemy
   There are two legal dimensions to the problem of increasing organizational uncertainty: disagreement as
   AND
   effectively destroyed, thus removing the predicate for a cobelligerency type of analysis.
   More could be done. First, with respect to the problem of al Qaeda’s
   AND
   the underlying rationale as is consistent with proper protection of sources and methods.
   Second, with respect to the problem of identifying separate organizations (beyond al Qaeda
   AND
   , by definition, ample time for Congress to act after all.228
   2.   Sidestepping the LOAC Dilemma
   Can Congress also make a useful contribution in terms of reducing uncertainty regarding the relevance of LOAC? This is a more complicated matter.
   The answer is probably no if we are speaking of Congress literally overriding the field
   AND
   other ways in which Congress might usefully speak to LOAC-related questions.
   Congress could require, as a matter of domestic law, that all relevant uses
   AND
   the statutorily identified group as to which a given detainee is linked.229
   Of course, none of that would appeal at all to those who object to
   AND
   S. government be acting under the rubric of self-defense.232
   There are additional steps, however, that Congress might take to address rights-
   AND
   the United States might soon conduct drone strikes on the streets of Paris.
   Congress might also consider embracing rather than fleeing from the involvement of the judiciary.
   AND
   executive branch practice has thus far been a purely executive branch affair.237
   This brings us to a particularly vexing question: What, if anything, should Congress say regarding Americans and actions undertaken in U.S. territory? The interaction of these questions with constitutional rights is a large topic, well beyond the scope of this Article. At a minimum, however, it would be sound for Congress to specify that any force it has authorized does not extend to the use of lethal force within the United States barring exigent circumstances.
   It is tempting to continue in this vein, advocating additional measures such as the
   AND
   not to fall directly into the teeth of some future election campaign season.
   Conclusion
   I intend this Article as a wake-up call. At first blush,
   AND
   to grapple seriously with the options for refining the legal architecture in response.

Otherwise Obama shifts to self-defense as the sole justification for TK, which sets a global norm
Beau Barnes 12, J.D. from BU and M.A. in Law and Diplomacy from Tufts, reauthorizing the "war on terror": the legal and policy implications of the aumf’s coming obsolescence, Military Law Review, Vol. 211  
The AUMF must inevitably expire because it is expressly linked to the September 11,
AND
arisen since the September 11 attacks and will persist in the foreseeable future.
A. The AUMF’s Inevitable Expiration
Although it is difficult to determine exactly when the AUMF will become obsolete, the
AND
or sufficiently direct link to the September 11, 2001, attacks.106
This shift has likely already occurred. Former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, writing recently
AND
obsolete—the legal framework we currently employ to justify these operations."110
While the court of public opinion seems to have accepted the AUMF’s inevitable expiration,
AND
, 2001, will ensure that the AUMF’s vitality will not be indefinite.
Moreover, even if one rejects as overly optimistic the position that Al Qaeda is
AND
all Islamist terrorism.119  B. The Consequences of Failing to Reauthorize
The AUMF’s inevitable expiration, brought about by the increasingly tenuous link between current U
AND
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
Commander in Chief cannot justify all counterterrorism operations as "self-defense."
A third option would be to conduct all counterterrorism operations as covert operations under the aegis of Title 50.131 Although the CIA typically carries out such "Title 50 operations," the separate roles of the military and intelligence community have become blurred in recent years.132 The president must make a "finding" to authorize such operations,133 which are conducted in secret to provide deniability for the U.S. Government.134
Relying entirely on covert counterterrorism operations, however, would suffer from several critical deficiencies
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.’ 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
United States efforts to entrench stabilizing global norms and oppose destabilizing international legal interpretations—
AND
continued successful targeting of Al Qaeda members, is rapidly approaching zero.  
Yes modeling – the status quo is a test case for norm diffusion
Fisk 26 Ramos 13 (Kerstin Fisk —- PhD in Political Science focusing on interstate war @ Claremont Graduate University, Jennifer M. Ramos PhD in Polisci and Professor @ Loyola Marymount focusing on norms and foreign policy, including drone warfare and preventative use of force, "Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Preventive Self-Defense as a Cascading Norm" 15 APR 2013, International Studies Perspectives (2013), 1–23)

The Process of Norm Development
Foundational work on how norms change and evolve can be traced back to Martha Finnemore
AND
essentially becomes taken for granted, integrated into practice without a second thought.
We adopt this basic framework in our analysis, but build on it to account
AND
desirable behavior in their community" (Finnemore and Sikkink 1998:896).
However, other actors in the international system are critical observers of the United States
AND
may be more likely to be internalized by elite learning (Checkel 1997).
With regard to the norm of preventive self-defense, we argue that the
AND
"slippery slope" between preemptive and preventive war (Crawford 2003).6
While the debate focused mainly on preventive war, the underlying idea about the preventive
AND
toughness." Second, the norm stems from a powerful, successful state:
How the United States acts is an enormous influence on the behavior of others.
AND
behavior become rules for behavior. (Kegley and Raymond 2003:391)
Third, the norm of preventive self-defense exists within a normative structure that supports it. The erosion of traditional sovereignty norms, brought on by a rise in human rights norms and globalization, among others, allows for the further redefinition of states’ rights and obligations.
Fourth, the post-9/11 context provides an environment with heightened security
AND
offer a trifecta of capabilities: precision, reconnaissance, and surveillance.8

That lowers the threshold for pre-emption
Fisk 26 Ramos 13 (Kerstin Fisk —- PhD in Political Science focusing on interstate war @ Claremont Graduate University, Jennifer M. Ramos— PhD in Polisci and Professor @ Loyola Marymount focusing on norms and foreign policy, including drone warfare and preventative use of force, "Actions Speak Louder Than Words: Preventive Self-Defense as a Cascading Norm" 15 APR 2013, International Studies Perspectives (2013), 1–23)

Conclusion
Preventive self-defense entails waging a war or an attack by choice, in
AND
for the purposes of reconnaissance, surveillance, and/or precision targeting.
Thus, the results of our plausibility probe provide some evidence that the global norm
AND
or lesser power. Research in this vein would compliment our analyses herein.
With the proliferation of technology in a globalized world, it seems only a matter
AND
it continues to provide other states with the justification to do the same.

Global nuclear war
William Bradford, Assistant Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law, July 2004, SYMPOSIUM: THE CHANGING LAWS OF WAR:  DO WE NEED A NEW LEGAL REGIME AFTER SEPTEMBER 11?: "THE DUTY TO DEFEND THEM": n1 A NATURAL LAW JUSTIFICATION FOR THE BUSH DOCTRINE OF PREVENTIVE WAR, 79 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1365

For restrictivists, n67 anticipatory self-defense, despite its pedigree, is "
AND
entire world on the false suspicion of threats emanating from every corner. n75

2

Ending the AUMF’s global war on Al-Qaeda is key to overall counterterrorism – it fuels recruitment and short-circuits long-term strategy
Christopher McIntosh, Visiting Assistant Professor, Political Studies, at Bard College and has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, Winter 2014, Ending the War with Al Qaeda, Orbis, 58.1

Some might object that a shift in policy would constitute surrender, an admission of
AND
the appropriate and necessary response—much as it was in late 2001.
Strategically speaking, dropping the war framework offers a middle ground. On the one
AND
al Qaeda. The issue is political and legal, not simply rhetorical.
Simultaneously, shifting away from a state of war does not take the use of
AND
, but do not pose a specific, credible threat—is acceptable.
Shifting policy away from war and armed conflict to legal enforcement also opens up other
AND
reasons for the dispute in the first place aren’t typical concerns during wartime.
Most importantly, history demonstrates that these conflicts rarely end in a state of war
AND
of being a successful means of building upon these gains and achieving victory.
Ending the strategy of war could have a direct effect on these softer measures by
AND
the perceived enemy—and those willing to engage in suicide attacks.33
Al Qaeda also benefits from the increasing expansion of U.S. intervention abroad
AND
, the vision of America pushed by al Qaeda may have increasing credibility.
The United States could remain at war with al Qaeda for an indefinite period of
AND
, and political support that historically has been crucial to ending terrorist campaigns.
Conclusion
A war that does not end cannot be won. The United States is at
AND
war with al Qaeda where the winning move is simply not to play.

Only the plan ends our exclusive focus on AQ – that’s key
Christopher McIntosh, Visiting Assistant Professor, Political Studies, at Bard College and has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, Winter 2014, Ending the War with Al Qaeda, Orbis, 58.1

After 12 years, the United States is facing a dramatically different and eroded enemy
AND
of war elevates their stature in ways that no longer serve our interests.
This elevation of stature is not without its pitfalls. U.S. foreign
AND
and even the attacks in Boston are considered "al Qaeda-inspired."
The point is that while these groups may be connected, so long as they
AND
closer to the target, yet the target ultimately remains out of reach.
Prosecuting a war with al Qaeda also sends a mixed message internationally. If the
AND
ground anywhere in the world—are directly at odds with this stance.
Continuing the fight only communicates to the world at large that al Qaeda is important
AND
with al Qaeda because it guarantees an expanded state of war in response.
According to the U.S. National Security Strategy, terrorist organizations pose a
AND
like states—are nearly impossible to "effectively destroy" through combat.
One of the important shifts from the Bush to the Obama Administrations was to narrow
AND
, have all emerged as increasingly relevant as the war has continued.21
When evaluating successful destruction of "al Qaeda," the United States must first carefully
AND
the war’s scope as narrow or as wide as the president sees fit.
Continuing to treat the current confrontation with al Qaeda as a war also shapes policies
AND
because individuals are the only thing al Qaeda has that we can target.
Real evidence is beginning to mount that targeting AQ’s personnel has successfully weakened al Qaeda
AND
members offer some attraction not least because they may lead to intelligence gains.
Perhaps most importantly, governments have utilized policies aimed at exploitinginternaldivisionswithintheseorganizationstosubstantialeffect.26 Given the global nature of the organization and differences in regional interests, one could argue that this option could be very fruitful. Regardless of its ultimate effectiveness, it is off the table so long as all al Qaeda members, sub-groups, and affiliates are singularly treated as the enemy.

AQ affiliates are getting stronger
Sam Jones 14, FT, Al-Qaeda: on the march, January 19, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8662d86-8124-11e3-95aa-00144feab7de.html~~23slide0-http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/d8662d86-8124-11e3-95aa-00144feab7de.html

At its peak, the US drone programme – with Hellfire missiles picking off al-Qaeda leaders seemingly at will in the remote mountains of Yemen and the tribal borderlands of Pakistan – meant becoming number three was as good as being dead.
But al-Qaeda has proved to have a Hydra-like quality. Far from withering, it has proliferated. The group and its affiliates have never controlled more land, had as many recruits in their ranks or been as well financially resourced as now.
In recent months, al-Qaeda franchises have scored successes or near-victories in an arc stretching from the Sahel in east Africa through to the Levant via the Horn of Africa, Yemen and Iraq.
In 2012, al-Qaeda forces came within hours of seizing control of Bamako, the capital of Mali. In 2013, its militants radicalised the conflict in Syria. This year has begun with fighters storming the city of Fallujah in Iraq, just 70km from Baghdad. They still control it.
Last Wednesday, the US House Intelligence committee opened an inquiry to investigate the resurgence of the group. Mike Rogers, the Republican congressman who chairs the committee, called the demise of al-Qaeda a "false narrative" and warned against complacency in Washington. He cautioned: "The defeat of an ideology requires more than just drone strikes."
Three fundamental questions are of concern to the west in its handling of the group’s rebound. How resilient is the resurgence, how centralised is its structure and how much of a threat does it still pose internationally?
The hope among its opponents is that al-Qaeda’s renaissance belies a still dangerous
AND
them as much as waging jihad against the west and its regional allies.
They point to the situation in Syria, where jihadis fighting for the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham are committing atrocities against civilians, turning other Islamist groups against them.
But Isis’s brutality – and the "seeds of its own destruction" narrative of al-Qaeda that is perpetuated by such actions in the west – is far from the complete picture.
Al-Qaeda is certainly disparate and no longer controlled to the same degree by a central authority. But it has proved very adaptable, and very aware of the mistakes it made in the past.
Afghanistan and Pakistan
In Afghanistan, the rout of al-Qaeda has been extensive. Intelligence analysts put the number of al-Qaeda operatives functioning in the country as low as 200, although many fear a rebound if aid to the fragile Afghan government dries up.
For now, al-Qaeda’s core presence in the area – and the world – remains in Pakistan, where Ayman al-Zawahiri, the successor to Osama bin Laden, is based.
Its links in Pakistan run deep. It is telling that it took the US a decade to find the whereabouts of bin Laden, who turned out to be living in a compound in urban Abbottabad. While al-Qaeda is known to have a significant presence in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of the country, many analysts believe its core leadership operates comfortably – or could even be based in – its most populated, metropolitan areas.
The US drone campaign explains why. "You can’t just go and bomb an urban area," says Shashank Joshi, research fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, a UK think-tank. "Al-Qaeda has adapted to our counterterrorism measures and it has become more resilient. ~While~ its leadership has been shattered at various points, it is clearly not any longer an organisation dependent on a small coterie of individuals for its survival."
Syria and Iraq
It is now difficult to imagine that before the 2003 US invasion of Iraq, al-Qaeda and affiliated groups had almost no presence in the Levant. The ill-fated US occupation created both a lawless environment for radical jihadi governments to take root and fomented an ideologically potent cause for them to pursue.
Al-Qaeda’s early success in Iraq under Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was
AND
spillover from Syria have contributed to the group’s renewed presence in Anbar province.
Both Jahbat Al-Nusra, led by Abu Mohammed al-Joulani, and the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, claim affiliation to al-Qaeda in the region.
But in Syria, it is Al-Nusra – Syrian- led and more tolerant – that has the support of Mr Zawahiri, and not the more brutal Iraqi-dominated Isis, which has already alienated swaths of the indigenous Syrian population with its ruthlessness.
Yemen
The remote mountains of southern Yemen gave birth to al-Qaeda and to this day remain one of the group’s most cohesive strongholds in the world. The group has found solace among the mountains and fiercely independent tribes of the south, tapping into the deep pool of resentment born of grinding poverty, anti-northern sentiment and, more recently, US drone strikes that have all too often hit innocent targets.
The Yemeni and Saudi branches of the group merged in 2009 to form al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, led by Nasir al-Wuhaishi, Osama bin Laden’s former secretary and one of Mr Zawahiri’s closest allies. AQAP is considered by western intelligence agencies the most dangerous branch of al-Qaeda, and it has proved resilient: a government campaign in 2012 to expel the group from Abyan and Sabwah provinces is still continuing.
AQAP has more recently adapted its method of exporting jihad by using other militant groups around the world as proxies.
"This may be the kind of relationship that we increasingly see between AQAP and other groups with the promotion of Mr Wuhaishi – loose operational guidance with seed funding and, where possible, the provision of fighters to participate in high-profile plots, especially in the fluid security environments of north Africa," says John Nugent, terrorism analyst at Control Risks, a security consultancy.
Horn of Africa
In the Horn, al-Qaeda’s current largest affiliate is al-Shabaab (the Boys), the former youth movement of the Islamic Courts Union (ICU), the radical Islamist group that once controlled most of Somalia.
While it has been forced to cede huge swaths of territory in the past 18 months, it remains a well-resourced organisation, and embedded throughout Somalia.
The UN estimated it earned 2450m a year when it controlled the port of Kismayo. It has also exploited the illegal ivory trade, killing hundreds of elephants in the region, according to environmental campaigners.
As al-Shabaab has been pushed back, it has sought to export violence to the home soil of those fighting it, such as Kenya. The group orchestrated the deadly Westgate shopping mall attack in Nairobi last September, in which more than 60 people died.
The ICU itself had strong ties with al-Qaeda core, with many of its founding leaders trained in Afghanistan, but al-Shabaab has often chosen to follow its own path.
In 2010 Mr Zawahiri sought to replace al-Shabaab’s leader, Ahmed Godane, but his ruling was ignored. Mr Godane swore allegiance to Mr Zawahiri again in 2012.
The Sahel and Maghreb
More than a year after staging a spectacular attack on a remote Algerian oil and gas facility, and 18 months after nearly seizing control of Mali, al-Qaeda of the Islamic Maghreb appears on the defensive. French troops have pushed back AQIM, led by Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud, a veteran of Algeria’s 1990s civil war. Algeria’s security forces have cornered extremist groups.
But from Mauritania to Libya, the longstanding ethnic and political grievances still fester. The abuses of the civil war that fed Algerian Islamist anger have never been resolved. The official neglect that led ethnic Tuaregs to seek an autonomous Saharan homeland has worsened.
"No one should underestimate the narrow margin that existed between AQ and their goal of seeking to take over the organs of a whole state and create a safe haven," says Stephen O’Brien, the UK prime minister’s special envoy to the Sahel, referring to AQIM’s near takeover of Bamako, Mali’s capital, in 2012.
"What is clear is that the franchise’s approach has become much more about winning over the hearts and minds of populations by the provision of basic services."

Drone strikes are structural insufficient to solve
David Gartenstein-Ross 14, senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and a prof at Georgetown, The Arab Spring and Al-Qaeda’s Resurgence, February 4, http://defenddemocracy.org/stuff/uploads/documents/DGR_Arab_Spring_testimony_final.pdf-http://defenddemocracy.org/stuff/uploads/documents/DGR_Arab_Spring_testimony_final.pdf

Conventional wisdom holds that al-Qaeda’s senior leadership has been decimated by Osama bin
AND
Second, there is specific evidence that AQSL retains capabilities despite this attrition.
Relevant to the question of what impact attrition has had on AQSL is an important
AND
order to win, but must also maintain the ability to mount attacks.
Unfortunately, al-Qaeda long ago understood how to lessen its organizational signature.
AND
such that their ability to recover from leadership and other losses is maximized.
Much like today, conventional wisdom a decade ago held that al-Qaeda’s core leadership had been decimated. A 2004 Los Angeles Times article outlines the perceptions counterterrorism experts held at the time: "Osama bin Laden may now serve more as an inspirational figure than a CEO," and "the al-Qaeda movement now appears to be more of an ideology than an organization."21
 This conventional wisdom proved to be inaccurate; and indeed, prevailing views of
AND
wake of bin Laden’s death were killed or that their authority has diminished.
Information that has come out over the past few years further indicates that the network
AND
twenty of the network’s far-flung operatives indicates continuing communications capabilities.25
AQSL’s expansion into Yemen provides further reason to believe that the senior leadership is growing
AND
to manage operations in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere.  
Law enforcement counter-terror’s key to prevent WMD lone wolf terrorism.
George Michael 14, Associate Professor of Criminal Justice at Westfield State (and CEO of the Bluth Family Banana Stand)(and 80’s pop legend), Counterinsurgency and Lone Wolf Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 26, Issue 1

As the history of guerilla warfare has demonstrated, one of the most important objectives
AND
and smaller groups to remain viable even without a broad base of support.
Chris Anderson of Wired magazine developed the concept of the "long tail" to
AND
people necessary to establish a viable terrorist movement has been drastically lowered. 11
Various political, social, and technological developments have contributed to the miniaturization of terrorist
AND
them funding and resources. This trend accelerated after 9/11. 17
Technology has contributed to the miniaturization of terrorism as well. One the one hand
AND
commerce and social networking, but in terrorism and insurgency as well. 19
Today, we are witnessing the age of the "super-empowered individual," who if adequately armed with a weapon of mass destruction (WMD), could wreak unprecedented havoc. 20 As the leaderless resistance concept gains popularity in terrorist and extremist subcultures and as our infrastructure becomes more and more interconnected, just a few determined lone wolves have the potential to cause greater mayhem. These developments mark a major departure from previous models of terrorism and insurgency.
Thomas X. Hammes elaborated on Lind’s framework in the book The Sling and the
AND
on their own initiative with no traditional command-and-control hierarchy.
Numerous trends are leading to the miniaturization of terrorism, warfare, and conflict around
AND
upturns relations among citizens, cultures, economies, societies, and governments.
Several factors make leaderless resistance a potentially effective strategy. Although the state’s capacity to
AND
measures that can be applied to mitigate the risk of lone wolf terrorism.
Applying Counterinsurgency Methods to Lone Wolf Terrorism
Essentially, counterinsurgency efforts can be conceptualized as a continuum encompassing two disparate approaches.
AND
the leadership through calculated reforms that address the grievances of the people. 28
Some of these lessons could be applied to lone wolf terrorism. In order to
AND
social network sites to understand their role in advancing violent extremist narratives. 30
Gaining the trust of the affected communities is vitally important for several reasons, not
AND
, by contrast, often subordinate individual liberties for the common good. 35
Understanding the radicalization process can give investigators clues as to who might be susceptible to
AND
not without critics in that there is often little oversight in their implementation.
Disseminating counter narratives in the affected community could quell the tensions that give rise to
AND
would seek to influence Internet discussions and spread pro-American propaganda. 40
Despite the Internet, it is unlikely that terrorists will completely self-radicalize.
AND
to his truck and report the vehicle’s license number to the police. 43
In recent years, the U.S. government has taken notice of the
AND
because of the rising level of hate speech and increasing gun sales. 45
Policies implemented after 9/11 seek to gather more intelligence on possible lone wolf
AND
from various law enforcement agencies to share information on terrorism and related issues.
"Direct" approaches to counterinsurgency can be applied to lone wolves as well.
AND
Middle East, which could limit its appeal to the broader masses. 52
To be sure, government authorities should deal resolutely with lone wolves who commit serious
AND
did much to fuel the militia movement in the mid-1990s. 54
Conclusion
Although state-to-state conflicts are declining in number, a great deal
AND
entities not unlike transnational criminal syndicates have over the past two decades. 55
A significant strategic drawback to the leaderless resistance approach is that without direction, it
AND
on the other hand, they probably cannot be completely defeated either. 57
Despite its limitations, terrorism in the West appears to be moving in the direction
AND
just a few angry people now have the potential to inflict unprecedented destruction.
To date, most episodes of leaderless resistance have been ill-planned and haphazard
AND
rhetorical calls such as RAHOWA (racial holy war) have broad currency.
Proponents of the leaderless resistance concept often assume that lone wolves are calculating and devote careful planning for their operations, but so far, these instances have been the exception and not the rule. But as the concept gains currency, it is conceivable that a new breed of more dangerous lone wolves could emerge in the future. The case of Anders Behring Breivik illustrates this danger.
According to his online political manifesto/diary, Breivik spent nine years methodically planning
AND
the deadliest carnage ever inflicted by a single gunman in that country. 59
The new media figured prominently in Breivik’s campaign of terror. Shortly before he began
AND
for his manifesto, which would assure substantial interest in its contents. 61
Despite episodes of sporadic violence, some observers dismiss the notion of "leaderless resistance
AND
the lone wolf challenge needs to be an integral part of counterterrorism programs.

Lone wolf WMD attacks cause extinction
Gary A. Ackerman 26 Lauren E. Pinson 14, Gary is Director of the Center for Terrorism and Intelligence Studies, Lauren is Senior Researcher and Project Manager for the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses of Terrorism, An Army of One: Assessing CBRN Pursuit and Use by Lone Wolves and Autonomous Cells, Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 26, Issue 1

The first question to answer is whence the concerns about the nexus between CBRN weapons
AND
desktop assemblage, purchased commercially and monitored by a single chemistry graduate student.
The rapid global spread and increased user-friendliness of many technologies thus represents a
AND
more perceptible in the current age than in the area of unconventional weapons.
These new technologies do not simply empower users on a purely technical level. Globalization
AND
legitimation for their beliefs in the maelstrom of virtual identities on the Internet.
All of this can spawn, it is feared, a more deleterious breed of
AND
footprint presented to intelligence and law enforcement agencies seeking to detect such behavior.
With the exception of the largest truck or aircraft bombs, the most likely means
AND
the perception of direct referents in the would-be perpetrator’s belief system.
Others are far more sanguine about the capabilities of lone actors (or indeed non
AND
autonomous cells who are as interested in getting noticed as in causing casualties.
Proven Capability and Intent
While legitimate debate can be had as to the level of potential threat posed by
AND
of the U.S. postal services and key government facilities. 16
Other historical cases of CBRN pursuit and use by lone actors and small autonomous cells highlight the need for further exploration. Among the many extant examples: 17
Thomas Lavy was caught at the Alaska-Canada border in 1993 with 130 grams of 7 pure ricin. It is unclear how Lavy obtained the ricin, what he planned to do with it, and what motivated him.
In 1996, Diane Thompson deliberately infected twelve coworkers with shigella dysenteriae type 2. Her motives were unclear.
In 1998, Larry Wayne Harris, a white supremacist, was charged with producing and stockpiling a biological agent—bacillus anthracis, the causative agent of anthrax.
In 1999, the Justice Department (an autonomous cell sympathetic to the Animal Liberation Front) mailed over 100 razor blades dipped in rat poison to individuals involved in the fur industry.
In 2000, Tsiugio Uchinshi was arrested for mailing samples of the mineral monazite with trace amounts of radioactive thorium to several Japanese government agencies to persuade authorities to look into potential uranium being smuggled to North Korea.
In 2002, Chen Zhengping put rat poison in a rival snack shop’s products and killed 42 people.
In 2005, 10 letters containing a radioactive substance were mailed to major organizations in Belgium including the Royal Palace, NATO headquarters, and the U.S. embassy in Brussels. No injuries were reported.
In 2011, federal agents arrested four elderly men in Georgia who were plotting to use ricin and explosives to target federal buildings, Justice Department officials, federal judges, and Internal Revenue Service agents.
Two recent events may signal an even greater interest in CBRN by lone malefactors.
AND
well influence the weapon selection of lone actor jihadists in Western nations. 19

3

The plan re-establishes Obama’s authority against groups other than al-Qaeda and the Taliban
Graham Cronogue 12, J.D. from Duke, a new aumf: defining combatants in the war on terror, 22 Duke J. Comp. 26 Int’l L. 377

The AUMF must be updated. In 2001, the AUMF authorized force to fight
AND
AUMF, the President is not authorized to use force against these groups.
Congress needs to specifically authorize force against groups outside of al-Qaeda and the
AND
, the constitutionality or unconstitutionality of presidential actions will become much clearer. n127
Removing the 9/11 nexus to reflect the current reality of war without writing
AND
the authorization and has simply acquiesced to the President’s exercise of broad authority.
The overarching purpose of the new authorization should be to make it clear that the
AND
al-Qaeda and the Taliban. This creates a very flexible authorization.
Despite the significant flexibility of the phrase "associated force engaged in hostilities", I
AND
against any groups that directly aid group "I" in its struggle.
My proposal for the new AUMF would appear as follows:
AFFIRMATION OF ARMED CONFLICT WITH AL-QAEDA, THE TALIBAN, AND ASSOCIATED FORCES
Congress affirms that -
(1) the United States is engaged in an armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces and that those entities continue to pose a threat to the United States and its citizens, both domestically and abroad;
a. for the purposes of this statute, an associated force is a nation, organization, or person who enjoys close and well-established collaboration with al-Qaeda or the Taliban and as part of this relationship has either engaged in or has intentionally provided direct tactical or logistical support for armed conflict against the United States or coalition partners.
 ~*404~
(2) the President has the authority to use all necessary and appropriate force during the current armed conflict with al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and associated forces pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541);
(3) the current armed conflict includes nations, organization, and persons who -
a. are part of al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces; or
b. engaged in hostilities or have directly supported hostilities in aid of a nation, organization or person described in subparagraph (A);
c. or harbored a nation, organization, or person described in subparagraph (A); and
(4) the President’s authority pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force includes the authority to detain belligerents, including persons described in paragraph (3), until the termination of hostilities.
(5) Nothing in this authorization should be construed to limit the President’s ability to respond to new and emerging threats or engage in appropriate and calculated actions of self-defense.
The definition of "associated forces" will add much needed clarity and provide congressional
AND
its relationship with al-Qaeda or the Taliban is another important limitation.
First, requiring the associated force to engage in violence that is directed at these
AND
in violence with, for instance, Australia over a completely unrelated issue.
While some groups that work closely with and support al-Qaeda would not be
AND
spreading to supporters of those who are merely supporters of al-Qaeda.
Compared to Representative McKeon’s proposal, these new provisions would narrow the scope of authorization
AND
against those nations that present the greatest threat to the United States today.
CONCLUSION
The original AUMF was hastily passed during a time of crisis to address America’s most
AND
it does a better job than Representative McKeon’s of heeding President Lincoln’s warning.

Congress is key
Kenneth Wainstein 13, partner at cadwalader, wickersham 26 taft llp, statement before the committee on foreign relations united states senate concerning counterterrorism policies and priorities: addressing the evolving threat, March 20, http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wainstein_Testimony.pdf-http://www.foreign.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wainstein_Testimony.pdf

It has recently become clear, however, that the Al Qaeda threat that occupied
AND
Peninsula, Al Qaeda in Iraq and Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.
 As Andy Liepman of the RAND Corporation cogently explained in a recent article,
AND
such as the unsuccessful plots targeting Times Square and the New York subway.
We are now at a pivot point where we need to reevaluate the means and
AND
— that will facilitate counterterrorism operations in the regions where these franchises operate.
While it is important that the Administration is undergoing this strategic reevaluation, it is
AND
the government’s call for strong but measured authorities to fight the terrorist adversary.
Second, Congressional action has gone a long way toward institutionalizing measures that were hastily
AND
is so critical to the success of our combined efforts against international terrorism.
These post-9/11 examples speak to the value that Congressional involvement can
AND
that Congress is poised to get substantially engaged in counterterrorism matters once again.
In assessing these and other proposals for national security legislation, Congress should be guided
AND
terrorist threats, like the one that hit home on 9/11.
The Patriot Act and subsequent national security legislation helped to rectify that imbalance and to
AND
for quick decision making and action in the context of war and targeting.
Second and more generally, Congress should maintain its record of largely resisting legislation that
AND
particular suspect — development of intelligence, certainty of successful prosecution, etc.
Flexibility should also be the watchword when approaching any effort to amend the Authorization for
AND
all such groups that pose a serious threat to our national security.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge: 

*cp

solvency

Clean repeal key to transition away from the endless war approach to terrorism
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-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.
The fact is that while there are other ways the AUMF could be usefully altered, a clean repeal has significant advantages.
From an operational perspective, the AUMF authorizes military force, but we’re winding down
AND
resort to deal with terrorist plots, especially outside war zones like Afghanistan.
The most successful counterterrorism operations involve timely intelligence collection and analysis, and cooperation with local officials, not open-ended military operations involving large deployments of U.S. troops. Law enforcement or intelligence services identified and disrupted multiple other plans over the years. These mechanisms do not rely upon the AUMF, so an eventual clean repeal won’t affect our ability to disrupt plots.
Conservatives who revere the Constitution should be most reluctant to hand over unending powers to the president. As James Madison said, granting "such powers ~to the President~ would have struck, not only at the fabric of our Constitution, but at the foundation of all well organized and well checked governments."
Madison knew that war tended to enhance executive powers and erode liberties. And that
AND
. Sunsetting the law prevents that growth in executive power from becoming permanent.
Liberals who might trust this president’s discretion in using these authorities have good reason to
AND
"we may be drawn into more wars we don’t need to fight."

Executive action fails

Christopher McIntosh, Visiting Assistant Professor, Political Studies, at Bard College and has a Ph.D. in political science from the University of Chicago, Winter 2014, Ending the War with Al Qaeda, Orbis, 58.1

Shifting Strategy—Ending the War
Post AUMF, the United States has eliminated much of al Qaeda’s leadership. The
AND
al Qaeda, but largely to the increasing inappropriateness of United States strategy.
Dropping the framework of war will not be simple, but neither is it impossible
AND
from operating its commander-in-chief powers in any substantive manner.
An effective, yet equally unlikely option also could be for the executive to take
AND
or her efforts in the name of security, regardless of political ideology.

tea party

No Tea Party influence – 8 warrants
Newton 3-28 ~Jay Newton-Small (congressional correspondent for TIME); "The Tea Party is Running Out of Steam: The movement is struggling as primary races slip away"; 3/28/14; http://time.com/41581/tea-party-midterm-elections-2014/-http://time.com/41581/tea-party-midterm-elections-2014/~~
The Tea Party is Running Out of Steam: The movement is struggling as primary races slip away
In past two cycles, the insurgent group claimed the Senate seats of Republicans Bob
AND
Tennessee, Pat Roberts of Kansas, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
There’s still a crew of Tea Party challengers in open-seat races, but the "Tea Party groups aren’t as united as they once were," says Jennifer Duffy, who tracks the Senate for Cook Political Report, which follows congressional races. "They haven’t united behind candidates in Georgia, North Carolina and South Carolina, for example."
It’s looking increasing likely that Republican incumbents or establishment candidates will prevail this year. Could this be the beginning of the end of the Tea Party?
Not quite.
The Tea Party had a change in strategy this cycle after establishment Republicans blamed activists
AND
been indicating, the Tea Party just isn’t as popular as it was."
Compounding that, the issues have gotten away from the movement. Budgets and deficits are no longer as prominent in the headlines. "There are Tea Party challenges, but they have less traction and momentum," says Norm Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. "One reason is the way the debt limit-shutdown issues played out. It’s not easy to undermine ’establishment’ candidates who were on the "wrong" side."
Not to mention, Ornstein says, that Obamacare has become "the great unifier." As Democratic pollster Celinda Lake noted earlier this week-http://time.com/37171/2014-midterm-elections-republicans-democrats-polls/, with every GOP candidate standing in opposition to the health care reform law, the biggest issue of the midterm elections so far this year, the establishment candidates are winning. There’s little right ground left for Tea Party candidates to go.
Of course, election filing deadlines haven’t past in half the states and Tea Party
AND
. They want to win as much as they want their principles embraced."

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge: 

Executive consultation means Congress says no

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.

Congress won’t repeal even if the CP resolves controversy

Michael Sant’Ambrogio, Assistant Professor of Law, Michigan State University College of Law, January 2014, ARTICLE: The Extra-legislative Veto, 102 Geo. L.J. 351

Unfortunately, there are difficulties with relying on legislative repeal to eliminate bad laws.
AND
party in control of the House through gerrymandering may prevent legislative action. n177
Consequently, even the loss of support by a majority of both houses of Congress and the President does not ensure that a law will be repealed. Put differently, laws that could never be enacted by the present Congress can endure because of legislative roadblocks designed by the Founders and subsequent procedural innovations in the rules of each house. n178

Congress won’t pass anything

Alexander Bolton, The Hill, 3/10/14, Worst Congress ever?, thehill.com/homenews/senate/200295-worst-congress-ever

Democrats and Republicans alike say the 113th Congress is shaping up to be the worst ever.
Veteran lawmakers are used to partisanship and stalemate, but they say Capitol Hill has sunk to a new dysfunctional low.
Congress has in some ways already closed for business until after the mid-term election. Any laws made between now and November will be minor.
President Obama’s "year of action" has started slowly and could end up as a punchline. Congressional approval ratings have hit all-time lows.
The relationships between congressional Republicans and Obama as well as between Democratic and GOP leaders on Capitol Hill lack the indispensable element of trust.
The most memorable action taken by this Congress was last year’s shutdown.
It is not that passing lots of laws necessarily makes a "good Congress," and many people would argue that the opposite is true. But even measures that both parties’ leaders want to get done, such as immigration reform, tax reform and transportation legislation have scant chance of reaching Obama’s desk.
House Democrats and Senate Republicans are both using this inaction to persuade voters to give them control of their respective chambers.
"It’s certainly the worst Congress since I’ve been in Congress," said Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), who was first elected in 1972 and is retiring at year’s end. "We’ve gotten very little done."
Waxman said Congress is the most partisan it has been during his 40-year tenure.
"It would be hard to find a worse one, for sure," said Richard Baker, the Senate’s first historian.
Some Republicans say the lack of action in Congress is a positive because it has slowed federal spending growth.

Net-Benefit – 2AC

No impact

Ganesh Sitaraman, Assistant Professor of Law, Vanderbilt Law School, January 2014, Credibility and War Powers, www.harvardlawreview.org/issues/127/january14/forum_1024.php~23_ftnref19

For all the talk of credibility, political scientists have offered devastating critiques of credibility
AND
In some cases, the threats were even thought to be more credible.
For constitutional lawyers, this research should be particularly troubling because credibility has migrated from
AND
of force expands the President’s war powers significantly without a legitimate policy justification.
I. Understanding Credibility As a justification for the use of military force, the
AND
together as "credibility arguments." B. The Logical Limits of Credibility Arguments
In the context of military threats and the use of force, credibility arguments suffer
AND
may ignore the Micronesian case because it is fundamentally different from their own.
Third, if we assume that credibility matters, then both sides know that it
AND
on ad infinitum, it is impossible to determine what policy to pursue.
C. Evidence from History
Credibility arguments could also be justified with real world evidence. For example, data could shed light on the manner of leaders’ credibility determinations: Do they actually pay attention to the disposition of the opponent based on their past actions? Or do they undertake a current calculus and focus on interests, capabilities, and the immediate situational context?
In a series of qualitative studies, political scientists have shown that past actions and
AND
.23 These findings therefore do not extend to all international issues.24
In the most extensive research on credibility theories, Professor Daryl Press reviewed thousands of
AND
their credibility, but because it allowed Germany to increase its power.25
From 1958 to 1961, the world watched a number of Berlin crises unfold between
AND
that British and American leaders almost never mentioned Khrushchev’s record of bluffing.27
In an important book on reputation, Mercer analyzed the crises leading up to World
AND
expect past action theories of credibility to be most powerful at explaining behavior.
Looking specifically at military actions justified by credibility arguments, political scientists have also provided
AND
see United States withdrawal as decreasing American credibility in the Cold War.33

Interbranch conflict now

Francis Fukuyama, Olivier Nomellini Senior Fellow at Stanford’s Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies, and a member of the Hoover Foreign Policy Working Group on Grand Strategy, 3/10/14,  American Power Is Waning Because Washington Won’t Stop Quarreling, www.newrepublic.com/article/116953/american-power-decline-due-partisanship-washington

However, I do believe that the political discount rate that translates economic strength into
AND
Republican-Democrat polarization; rather, the cleavages run through both parties.
What is different now is a much more poisonous partisan atmosphere in Washington, which sees virtually any policy issue as an arena for political combat and point-scoring. This means that Congress is much less willing to delegate discretion to the executive branch on foreign policy, and makes the president in turn preemptively cautious in exercising power.
There are two recent cases of this: the murder of Ambassador Stevens in Benghazi
AND
diplomatic security as the first priority of U.S. regional policy.
Similarly, the bill currently before the Senate setting forth in great detail the terms
AND
. But this is a very poor way to proceed in a negotiation.
The net effect of political polarization has been to shift control over foreign policy back from the president to Congress in much the same manner as in arguments over Vietnam in the 1970s and Central America in the 1980s. This reduces executive discretion and increases the effective political discount rate.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge: 

Obama’s already abandoned the armed conflict model as a matter of policy

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

Does it really matter, from a legal perspective, whether the U.S
AND
postwar framework would have far less of a practical impact than both assume.
First, consider lethal force. The Obama Administration has made clear that lethal force
AND
loss of operational flexibility should the underlying armed-conflict framework be abandoned.
The situation with respect to military detention is different, but only marginally so.
AND
period will have comparatively little real consequence in light of this larger dynamic.
None of this is an argument for or against declaring an end to the conflict with al Qaeda. The debate over that issue is badly distorted, however, by the shared and mistaken assumption that status quo targeting and detention policies depend on the armed-conflict model. Moving to postwar would not generate the sea change that advocates seek and opponents fear.

No enviro impact

Brook 13
Barry Brook, Professor at the University of Adelaide, leading environmental scientist, holding the Sir Hubert Wilkins Chair of Climate Change at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, and is also Director of Climate Science at the University of Adelaide’s Environment Institute, author of 3 books and over 250 scholarly articles, Corey Bradshaw is an Associate Professor at the University of Adelaide and a joint appointee at the South Australian Research and Development Institute, Brave New Climate, March 4, 2013, "Worrying about global tipping points distracts from real planetary threats", http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/03/04/ecological-tipping-points/

Barry Brook
We argue that at the global-scale, ecological "tipping points" and threshold-like "planetary boundaries" are improbable. Instead, shifts in the Earth’s biosphere follow a gradual, smooth pattern. This means that it might be impossible to define scientifically specific, critical levels of biodiversity loss or land-use change. This has important consequences for both science and policy.
Humans are causing changes in ecosystems across Earth to such a degree that there is now broad agreement that we live in an epoch of our own making: the Anthropocene. But the question of just how these changes will play out — and especially whether we might be approaching a planetary tipping point with abrupt, global-scale consequences — has remained unsettled.
A tipping point occurs when an ecosystem attribute, such as species abundance or carbon sequestration, responds abruptly and possibly irreversibly to a human pressure, such as land-use or climate change. Many local- and regional-level ecosystems, such as lakes,forests and grasslands, behave this way. Recently however, there have been several efforts to define ecological tipping points at the global scale.
At a local scale, there are definitely warning signs that an ecosystem is about to "tip". For the terrestrial biosphere, tipping points might be expected if ecosystems across Earth respond in similar ways to human pressures and these pressures are uniform, or if there are strong connections between continents that allow for rapid diffusion of impacts across the planet.
These criteria are, however, unlikely to be met in the real world.
First, ecosystems on different continents are not strongly connected. Organisms are limited in their movement by oceans and mountain ranges, as well as by climatic factors, and while ecosystem change in one region can affect the global circulation of, for example, greenhouse gases, this signal is likely to be weak in comparison with inputs from fossil fuel combustion and deforestation.
Second, the responses of ecosystems to human pressures like climate change or land-use change depend on local circumstances and will therefore differ between locations. From a planetary perspective, this diversity in ecosystem responses creates an essentially gradual pattern of change, without any identifiable tipping points.
This puts into question attempts to define critical levels of land-use change or biodiversity loss scientifically.
Why does this matter? Well, one concern we have is that an undue focus on planetary tipping points may distract from the vast ecological transformations that have already occurred.
After all, as much as four-fifths of the biosphere is today characterised by ecosystems that locally, over the span of centuries and millennia, have undergone human-driven regime shifts of one or more kinds.
Recognising this reality and seeking appropriate conservation efforts at local and regional levels might be a more fruitful way forward for ecology and global change science.
Corey Bradshaw
(see also  notes published here on ConservationBytes.com)
Let’s not get too distracted by the title of the this article – Does the terrestrial biosphere have planetary tipping points? – or the potential for a false controversy. It’s important to be clear that the planet is indeed ill, and it’s largely due to us. Species are going extinct faster than they would have otherwise. The planet’s climate system is being severely disrupted; so is the carbon cycle. Ecosystem services are on the decline.
But – and it’s a big "but" – we have to be wary of claiming the end of the world as we know it, or people will shut down and continue blindly with their growth and consumption obsession. We as scientists also have to be extremely careful not to pull concepts and numbers out of thin air without empirical support.
Specifically, I’m referring to the latest "craze" in environmental science writing – the idea of "planetary tipping points" and the related "planetary boundaries".
It’s really the stuff of Hollywood disaster blockbusters – the world suddenly shifts into a new "state" where some major aspect of how the world functions does an immediate about-face.
Don’t get me wrong: there are plenty of localised examples of such tipping points, often characterised by something we call "hysteresis". Brook defines hysterisis as:
a situation where the current state of an ecosystem is dependent not only on its environment but also on its history, with the return path to the original state being very different from the original development that led to the altered state. Also, at some range of the driver, there can exist two or more alternative states
and "tipping point" as:
the critical point at which strong nonlinearities appear in the relationship between ecosystem attributes and drivers; once a tipping point threshold is crossed, the change to a new state is typically rapid and might be irreversible or exhibit hysteresis.
Some of these examples include state shifts that have happened (or mostly likely will) to the cryosphere, ocean thermohaline circulation, atmospheric circulation, and marine ecosystems, and there are many other fine-scale examples of ecological systems shifting to new (apparently) stable states.
However, claiming that we are approaching a major planetary boundary for our ecosystems (including human society), where we witness such transitions simultaneously across the globe, is simply not upheld by evidence.
Regional tipping points are unlikely to translate into planet-wide state shifts. The main reason is that our ecosystems aren’t that connected at global scales.
The paper provides a framework against which one can test the existence or probability of
AND
addressing the real problems (foxes), or as Brook and colleagues summarise:
framing global change in the dichotomous terms implied by the notion of a global tipping point could lead to complacency on the "safe" side of the point and fatalism about catastrophic or irrevocable effects on the other.
In other words, let’s be empirical about these sorts of politically charged statements instead of crying "Wolf21" while the hordes of foxes steal most of the flock.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge: 

Terrorism studies are epistemologically and methodologically valid—-our authors are self-reflexive

Michael J. Boyle ’8, School of International Relations, University of St. Andrews, and John Horgan, International Center for the Study of Terrorism, Department of Psychology, Pennsylvania State University, April 2008, "A Case Against Critical Terrorism Studies," Critical Studies On Terrorism, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 51-64
 Jackson (2007c) calls for the development of an explicitly CTS on the
AND
community of scholars does not produce such scathing indictments of its own 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.

Quality of life is skyrocketing worldwide by all measures

Ridley, visiting professor at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, former science editor of The Economist, and award-winning science writer, 2010
(Matt, The Rational Optimist, pg. 13-15)
If my fictional family is not to your taste, perhaps you prefer statistics.
AND
was reduced more in the last fifty years than in the previous 500.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge:
2AC POLITICS

The impact doesn’t happen for 20 years and the squo solves
David Kravets, Senior Staff Writer, 3/20 “History Will Remember Obama as the Great Slayer of Patent Trolls,” http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/03/obama-legacy-patent-trolls/

One of President Barack Obama’s biggest legacies will be his healthcare plan. Another, thanks to the Edward Snowden leaks, is domestic spying.¶ But Obama will leave another gift to posterity, one not so obvious, one that won’t be felt until years after his term ends: The history ebooks will remember the 44th president for setting off a chain of reforms that made predatory patent lawsuits a virtual memory. Obama is the patent troll slayer.¶ Even now, a perfect storm of patent reform is brewing in all three branches of government. Over time, it could reshape intellectual property law to turn the sue-and-settle troll mentality into a thing of the past.¶ “If these reforms go into effect, they will be felt only minimally during the Obama administration,” says Joe Gratz, a San Francisco-based patent lawyer who is representing Twitter in a patent dispute. “They will be felt quite strongly well after the Obama administration.”¶ “The president is a strong leader on these issues. We haven’t really seen that before,” says Julie Samuels, the executive director of startup advocacy group Engine. “I do think that this could be one of the legacies of this administration.”¶ A patent troll is generally understood to be a corporation that exists to stockpile patents for litigation purposes, instead of to build products. Often taking advantage of vague patent claims and a legal system slanted in the plaintiff’s favor, the company uses the patents to sue or threaten to sue other companies, with an eye to settling out of court for a fraction of what they were originally seeking.¶ The nation’s legal dockets are littered with patent cases with varying degrees of merit, challenging everything from mobile phone push notifications and podcasting to online payment methods and public Wi-Fi. Some 2,600 companies were targeted in new patent lawsuits last year alone.¶ Against that backdrop, Obama issued five executive orders on patent reform last summer. Among other things, they require the Patent and Trademark Office to stop issuing overly broad patents, and to force patent applicants to provide more details on what invention they are claiming. One of the orders opens up patent applications for public scrutiny — crowdsourcing — while they are in the approval stage, to help examiners locate prior art and assist with analyzing patent claims.¶ Since a patent is binding for 20 years, the impact of the new rules won’t be felt for some time. But they will be felt, says Gratz, a litigator who defends technology-heavy patent lawsuits. “The supply of overly broad, vague patents will start to dry up as new rules get put into place,” he says.¶ In January, Obama became the first president to elevate patent reform to a national meat-and-potatoes issue, when he used the State of the Union address to urge Congress to “pass a patent reform bill that allows our businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly and needless litigation.”¶ The market is already reacting to the wind change. Shares of patent-litigation firm Acacia dropped sharply following Obama’s State of the Union, and are hovering near 52-week lows. Shares of VirnetX are in a similar tailspin. RPX, another intellectual-property concern, has seen its share prices slashed in half over the past three years.¶ The House passed major patent reform legislation last year, on a 325-91 vote, in a bid to even out the litigation playing field. Among other things, the Innovation Act requires plaintiffs in lawsuits to be more specific about what they believe is being infringed, and to identify the people who have financial interests behind a company. Perhaps most significantly, it requires that plaintiffs pay litigation expenses if they lose at trial.¶ The bill also prohibits patent holders from suing mere users of a technology that allegedly infringes on an invention, like restaurants offering Wi-Fi access to their diners.

The industry is going nowhere – stronger than ever
Vic Shao, Chief Executive Officer of Green Charge Networks, an energy storage startup based in Silicon Valley, 14 “Vic is Chief Executive Officer of Green Charge Networks, an energy storage startup based in Silicon Valley, jan 11, http://www.care2.com/greenliving/5-reasons-the-cleantech-industry-is-stronger-than-ever.html#ixzz2xN748IW3

As a cleantech CEO who has received $12M in funding from the US Department of Energy, I feel compelled to assure the American public that your money has not been wasted. The cleantech industry has not crashed, as the recent 60 Minutes piece asserted, but rather is stronger than ever. Here are just a few of the reasons why:¶ 1. More Americans use clean energy than ever before.¶ The infamous crash of Solyndra was actually sign of a positive trend for solar consumers: a dramatic decrease in the cost per kWh. The majority of US solar jobs are concentrated in financing and installation, not manufacturing. Cheaper panels has led to a boom in the US solar industry, making 2013 a record year for solar installations. Wind energy now powers over 15 million American homes. During the first six months of 2013, America bought twice as many plug-in electric vehicles as in the first half of 2012.¶ 2. Cleantech is still a solid investment.¶ Despite the burst of the Silicon Valley cleantech investment bubble following Solyndra, investors have been returning to the industry, lured by the rapid growth of companies like Solar City. The US Department of Energy (DOE) loan program has a whopping 97 success rate with much-publicized failures such as Solyndra and Abound Solar making up just three percent of the portfolio.¶ 3. Greenhouse gas emissions in the United States are falling.¶ Carbon dioxide emissions fell by 13 in the past five years to its lowest level in nearly 20 years. Though part of the savings was due to an increase in natural gas, renewable energy and new energy-saving technologies also played a role. This year, 2014, is predicted to be one of the cleanest years since the early 1990s.¶ 4. The grid is changing.¶ The U.S. electricty utility industry faces a critical juncture as new technology and declining prices allow a more distributed system of energy storage, renewable energy installations and power efficiency strategies. Over $4 billion has been invested in the so-called “smart grid.” New technologies like Opower for residential and Green Charge Networks’ GreenStationTMs have begun to help businesses save money on their utility bills.¶ 5. Cleantech jobs are growing.¶ There are now more solar workers than ranchers in Texas. In California, solar workers outnumber actors. The solar industry in total employs 119,000 workers with the wind industry bringing in another 80,000. Though jobs in cleantech as a whole are difficult to size due to differing definitions, we know that green jobs have seen explosive growth over the past few years, despite the recession. Also, with the recent legislative initiatives, there will be a ton more innovations, businesses, and jobs created out of the emerging energy storage sector in the years to come, fulfilling a very real and necessary gap in California (especially with the recent de-commissioning of San Onofre Generating Station — SONGS).¶ From the rise in clean energy adoption to the replacement of our aging grid infrastructure with new technology, it’s clear that the cleantech industry isn’t going anywhere.

Fights over details swamp compromise
Meyers 3/5/14
JESSICA MEYERS, Politico, 3/5/14, "Lawmakers: Patent reform will advance", http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/patent-reform-104278.html

Lee said he and Leahy want to find a way to incorporate an amendment from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) that would force the loser to pay the winner’s fees in patent lawsuits. This “could produce something that ends up being pretty close to what passed in the House,” he said.
Not everyone wants it that way. Russ Merbeth, chief policy council for Intellectual Ventures, said such fee shifting could “chill” the ability of businesses to enforce their patent rights. “It’s one of the tougher nuts to crack in this whole debate,” he said. The company, which holds a vast array of patents, is often criticized as one of the biggest trolls.
KAYAK’s Berman, attacked Intellectual Ventures as the real problem. “It’s about him,” he said.
The last patent overhaul, the America Invents Act, took place only three years ago. But supporters of reform don’t believe it resolved the troll issue.
Even if a new bill moves forward in the Senate, the two chambers must settle on a compromise in the midst of an election year. That timing, Berman said, “concerns me greatly.”

XOs solve now
David Kravets, Wired, 3/20/14, History Will Remember Obama as the Great Slayer of Patent Trolls, www.wired.com/threatlevel/2014/03/obama-legacy-patent-trolls/

Even now, a perfect storm of patent reform is brewing in all three branches of government. Over time, it could reshape intellectual property law to turn the sue-and-settle troll mentality into a thing of the past.
“If these reforms go into effect, they will be felt only minimally during the Obama administration,” says Joe Gratz, a San Francisco-based patent lawyer who is representing Twitter in a patent dispute. “They will be felt quite strongly well after the Obama administration.”
“The president is a strong leader on these issues. We haven’t really seen that before,” says Julie Samuels, the executive director of startup advocacy group Engine. “I do think that this could be one of the legacies of this administration.”
A patent troll is generally understood to be a corporation that exists to stockpile patents for litigation purposes, instead of to build products. Often taking advantage of vague patent claims and a legal system slanted in the plaintiff’s favor, the company uses the patents to sue or threaten to sue other companies, with an eye to settling out of court for a fraction of what they were originally seeking.
The nation’s legal dockets are littered with patent cases with varying degrees of merit, challenging everything from mobile phone push notifications and podcasting to online payment methods and public Wi-Fi. Some 2,600 companies were targeted in new patent lawsuits last year alone.
Against that backdrop, Obama issued five executive orders on patent reform last summer. Among other things, they require the Patent and Trademark Office to stop issuing overly broad patents, and to force patent applicants to provide more details on what invention they are claiming. One of the orders opens up patent applications for public scrutiny — crowdsourcing — while they are in the approval stage, to help examiners locate prior art and assist with analyzing patent claims.
Since a patent is binding for 20 years, the impact of the new rules won’t be felt for some time. But they will be felt, says Gratz, a litigator who defends technology-heavy patent lawsuits. “The supply of overly broad, vague patents will start to dry up as new rules get put into place,” he says.
In January, Obama became the first president to elevate patent reform to a national meat-and-potatoes issue, when he used the State of the Union address to urge Congress to “pass a patent reform bill that allows our businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly and needless litigation.”
The market is already reacting to the wind change. Shares of patent-litigation firm Acacia dropped sharply following Obama’s State of the Union, and are hovering near 52-week lows. Shares of VirnetX are in a similar tailspin. RPX, another intellectual-property concern, has seen its share prices slashed in half over the past three years.
The House passed major patent reform legislation last year, on a 325-91 vote, in a bid to even out the litigation playing field. Among other things, the Innovation Act requires plaintiffs in lawsuits to be more specific about what they believe is being infringed, and to identify the people who have financial interests behind a company. Perhaps most significantly, it requires that plaintiffs pay litigation expenses if they lose at trial.
The bill also prohibits patent holders from suing mere users of a technology that allegedly infringes on an invention, like restaurants offering Wi-Fi access to their diners.
The Senate is debating similar legislation in a piecemeal manner. Whatever it finally approves, the package will have to go back to the House for final approval before landing on the president’s desk.
And the Supreme Court is mulling a case on whether patent trolls should pay legal fees to the other side if they lose in court and is even considering the hot-button issue of whether software — often at the center of modern patent disputes — is even patentable.
Taken together, Samuels says, the looming changes undermine the “I’m going to sue you unless you pay me to go away” mentality associated with patent trolling.

Consensus backing for repeal
Michael McAuliff 13, was a correspondent for the New York Daily News, AUMF Repeal Bill Would End Extraordinary War Powers Granted After 9/11, June 10, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/aumf-repeal-bill-war-powers_n_3416689.html

Two administrations have relied upon the AUMF to use military force in Afghanistan and around the world. They have also used the law to justify practices that lately have become more controversial, including drone strikes that have killed at least four Americans and the indefinite detention of terror suspects at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, where more than 100 detainees are currently on a hunger strike.
President Barack Obama recently called for the repeal of the authorization, saying it promotes perpetual war and grants presidents too much power. Leaders in the Senate have also called for its repeal or revision, noting that while the AUMF is supposed to target al Qaeda, the Taliban and allies who helped carry out the Sept. 11 attacks, it has been interpreted to be used far more broadly.
"The nature of the threat we face is different now," said Schiff. "The authorities that we're using are straining at their legal edges to authorize force against groups that didn't exist on 9/11 or that may be only loosely affiliated with al Qaeda."
"I think the timing is right, particularly given the president's speech 10 days ago," he added, arguing that Congress can no longer afford to "kick the can" down the road on such a vital piece of national security law, one that is now 12 years removed from the event that sparked it.
"Congress has a long history over the last decade of abdicating these tough questions because they're difficult," he said.
The questions around the AUMF are indeed difficult. In addition to being used to answer for indefinite detention and the targeted killings of Americans overseas, Congress has used the measure as a basis to pass laws expressly permitting the military to detain Americans without trial. The Obama administration has declared it will not hold U.S. citizens under that authority, but reserves the right to detain the 166 captives at Guantanamo.
But without the AUMF in force, Congress and the administration would have to decide how to deal with prisoners of war in the absence of a specific war. While dozens of captives at Guantanamo are cleared to be released, many are deemed threats to the United States who cannot be tried or let go.
"That is the most difficult kernel to pop," said Schiff. "There is still a remaining group of people for whom the evidence is either highly classified or highly problematic because it was a product of torture. And that problem remains to be solved."
Simply freeing those Guantanamo detainees is not an option, he said. "There will be a need for continued detention, even after the expiration of the AUMF," Schiff said, citing a World War II precedent for handling prisoners of war.
"I don't know that the authority to detain enemy combatants would end with AUMF. But I do think that Guantanamo ought to come to an end, ideally to match up with the expiration o the AUMF in about 18 months," he said.
Schiff's effort comes amid the recent revelations of the breadth of the National Security Agency's ability to spy on Americans -- an authority that stems from a separate law also inspired by the 2001 terror attacks, the PATRIOT Act. It also comes as observers on both the left and right have expressed greater suspicion of the executive branch's use of power in targeting reporters, whistleblowers and conservative groups.
Schiff, a member of the House Intelligence Committee, said the broader debate provides "context" for his measure, but evaluating the AUMF and the type of force Congress allows the president to use in the war on terror is a separate, if equally difficult, matter.
"There's probably a more substantial consensus that the existing AUMF is outdated and probably should be replaced," he said. "There's a lot less consensus about what should come after."

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 is preparing to release a plan to end National Security Agency bulk information collection and leave that information with phone companies instead — albeit not for a longer duration than they are already required to hold the information for. Obama described the plan as “workable,” adding: “This insures that the government is not in possession of that bulk data.” What makes this surprising is that old axiom about presidents: they don’t relinquish power willingly. No matter what they might say about the appropriate limits of executive authority before they take office, once they’re actually in the White House, they want to hold on to every shred they can. Obama is now poised to give up some of his power. But it needs to be restated that this would not have happened without all those revelations from Edward Snowden. What will Obama’s proposal look like? Charlie Savage of the New York Times reported: The Obama administration is preparing to unveil a legislative proposal for a far-reaching overhaul of the National Security Agency’s once-secret bulk phone records program in a way that — if approved by Congress — would end the aspect that has most alarmed privacy advocates since its existence was leaked last year, according to senior administration officials. Under the proposal, they said, N.S.A. would end its systematic collection of data about Americans’ calling habits. The records would be stay in the hands of phone companies, which would not be required to retain the data for any longer than they normally would. And the N.S.A. could obtain specific records only with permission from a judge, using a new kind of court order.

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.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge:
We restrict the AUMF – that’s war powers authority
Seth Weinberger 6, Associate Professor of Politics and Government at the University of Puget Sound, Presidential War Powers in a Never-Ending War, http://www.academia.edu/174818/Presidential_War_Powers_in_a_Never-Ending_War-http://www.academia.edu/174818/Presidential_War_Powers_in_a_Never-Ending_War

However, all of these critiques, while certainly trenchant and possibly correct, fail
AND
of the September ll"1 attacks tantamount to a declaration of war?
These are some of the questions that will be considered herein.
Specifically, this paper will first examine the essential nature of a formally declared ?"
AND
the legislative reins to the executive branch in pursuit of ’"victory."
II.   The Meaning of "War" .and Executive War Powers
The first question to be considered is whether the AUMF passed by Congress, on
AND
declare war. we shall first examine how the war powers are delegated.
The Constitution is actually quite specific in spelling out which branch has which power,
AND
within congressional purview, but what is meant by declaring war is unexplained.

overlimit – there are only two sources of authority – the AUMF and commander in chief powers

Colby P. Horowitz 13 "CREATING A MORE MEANINGFUL ¶ DETENTION STATUTE: LESSONS LEARNED ¶ FROM HEDGES V. OBAMA," FORDHAM L.R. Vol. 81, http://fordhamlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/Vol_81/Horowitz_April.pdf-http://fordhamlawreview.org/assets/pdfs/Vol_81/Horowitz_April.pdf

Justice Black’s majority opinion in Youngstown expressed a limited view of presidential war powers.
AND
... from which such a power ~could~ fairly be implied." 117
Justice Black also determined that the President had exceeded his constitutional powers. He explained that the President’s Commander-in-Chief power was limited to the "theater of war," which did not include domestic production facilities.118 Additionally, the seizure did not fall under the Presiden’t power to execute the laws, because Justice Black saw it as lawmaking and not execution.

Tournament: NDT | Round: 5 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge: 

2AC Circumvention

It guides all administration policy

Elizabeth Beavers 14, J.D., program assistant for foreign policy at Friends Committee on National Legislation, It’s Time to Repeal the AUMF, February 18, http://fcnl.org/blog/of_peace_and_politics/time_to_repeal_aumf/-http://fcnl.org/blog/of_peace_and_politics/time_to_repeal_aumf/

The Obama administration has been notoriously secretive about its drones policy and the legal framework used to justify it. However, one thing is certain: the AUMF is the centerpiece. Officials state that, before targeting anyone, the first question is always: "are they AUMF-able?" Meaning, of course, does the AUMF allow us to target and kill this person? So far the answer usually seems to be a resounding yes.

Obama vetoes anything broader

Ari Shapiro 13, NPR correspondent, Why Obama Wants To Change The Key Law In The Terrorism Fight, May 29, http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/29/187059276/why-obama-wants-to-change-the-key-law-in-the-terrorism-fight-http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/05/29/187059276/why-obama-wants-to-change-the-key-law-in-the-terrorism-fight

Obama promised to work with Congress to refine, and ultimately repeal, the AUMF’s mandate.
"And I will not sign laws designed to expand this mandate further," he said.

2AC AQ Weak

Yes terrorism – most qualified evidence

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/-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."

Tournament: Harvard | Round: 3 | Opponent: Michigan AP | Judge: Karlson
The United States Federal Government should establish a quantum of information framework for targeted killing outside zones of active hostilities.