Tournament: GSU | Round: 2 | Opponent: Emory JS | Judge: Dan Bagwell
1AC
Terrorism Advantage
Indefinite detention hurts the war on terror – impedes intelligence gathering, destroys credibility, and alienates key allies
Hathaway, et al, ’13 Oona (Gerard C. and Bernice Latrobe
AND
”, The Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 38, 2013
The least contested bases for detention authority in any context are postconviction criminal detention and
AND
, which in turn produces more intelligence over the course of prosecution.254

Indefinite detention creates recruitment propaganda and causes a resource trade off which shatters the ability to fight terrorism
Powell 8 (Catherine, Georgetown Law Visiting Professor for the 2012-13 academic year and teaches international law, constitutional law, and constitutional rights in comparative perspective. She has recently served in government on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s Policy Planning Staff and on the White House National Security Staff, where she was Director for Human Rights. “Scholars’ Statement of Principles for the New President on U.S. Detention Policy: An Agenda for Change*” http://www.law.yale.edu/documents/pdf/Alumni_Affairs/Scholars_Statement.pdf)
Across the political spectrum, there is a growing consensus that the existing system of
AND
with Congress to utilize this broad array of tools to vigorously prosecute terrorism.

Terrorist organizations are gaining strength now
Evans 13(Andrew, quoting: Derek Chollet, assistant secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs and Michael Sheehan, assistant secretary of Defense for Special Operations/Low Intensity Conflict and Interdependent Capabilities, “Al Qaeda growing threat in Middle East, Obama officials say”, http://freebeacon.com/the-tide-of-war-is-rising/, 4/10/13)
Defense and military officials testified that al Qaeda is gaining a foothold in several areas
AND
and watch and figure out reasons why we can’t intervene,” McCain said.

Nuclear terrorism is likely - al Qaeda is opportunistic and has WMD ambitions
Hoffman 13 (February 19, Bruce, Director of the Center for Security Studies and Director of the Security Studies Program at Georgetown, “Interview with Bruce Hoffman on today’s Global Terrorism Threat” interview by Bilal Y. Saab, Arms Control and Regional Security for the Middle East, http://www.middleeast-armscontrol.com/2013/02/19/interview-with-bruce-hoffman-on-todays-global-terrorism-threat/)

1- Many scholars, analysts, and government officials have viewed the Al Qaeda
AND
US, the West, and regional governments react will determine the outcome.
Nuclear terrorism causes extinction
Ayson 10 (Robert, Professor of Strategic Studies and Director of the Centre for Strategic Studies: New Zealand –  Victoria University of Wellington, “After a Terrorist Nuclear Attack: Envisaging Catalytic Effects”, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, 33(7), July)
A Catalytic Response: Dragging in the Major Nuclear Powers
A terrorist nuclear attack, and even the use of nuclear weapons in response by
AND
consultation from Washington that the latter found itself unable or unwilling to provide.
Only by ending indefinite detention, thus increasing US legitimacy and winning hearts and minds, can we win the war on terror
Spaulding 9 (Suzanne E., counsel of record, AMICI CURIAE OF FORMER NATIONAL SECURITY OFFICIALS AND COUNTERTERRORISM EXPERTS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER, http://www.cnss.org/data/files/DetentionDue_Process/Enemy_Combatants/AlMarri_v_Spagone_Amicus_Brief_1.28.09.pdf)
Imprisonment without trial of individuals seized inside the United States promotes the false narrative of a United States engaged in a war on Islam and Muslims, which the terrorists exploit for recruitment. Seizing individuals off the streets of America, declaring them enemy combatants, and asserting the right to keep them locked up indefinitely, with no formal charges or trial, is so far outside the traditions of fundamental fairness on which this Nation was founded that it perpetuates the perception generated by al Qaeda that we have abandoned our commitment to the rule of law. We recognize that the security threat springs from the terrorists: U.S. policies and actions in no way justify the conduct of the terrorists. But the perception that the United States is failing to act in accordance with its fundamental values feeds the terrorist narrative, and thus undermines our efforts to confront the terrorist threat.12 The significance of this dynamic is now broadly understood. As Retired General Wesley Clark said in an article about this very case: Treating al-Marri as an enemy combatant endangers our political traditions and our commitment to liberty, and further damages America’s legitimacy in the eyes of others. . . . We train our soldiers to respect the line between combatant and civilian. Our political leaders must also respect this distinction, lest we unwittingly endanger the values for which we are fighting, and further compromise our efforts to strengthen our security. Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala, Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers, N.Y.Times, Aug. 8, 2007, at A19. Jeffrey H. Smith, former CIA General Counsel, testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2007: “In our efforts to get tough with the terrorists we have strayed from some of our fundamental principles and undermined 60 years of American leadership in the law of war. In six short years, our disregard for the rule of law has undermined our standing in the world and, with it, our ability to achieve our objectives in the broader war.” Meeting to Receive Testimony on Legal Issues Regarding Individuals Detained by the Department of Defense as Unlawful Enemy Combatants: Hearing Before the S. Comm. on Armed Services, 110th Cong. 3 (Apr. 26, 2007) (statement of Jeffrey H. Smith, Senior Partner, Arnold and Porter LLP), available at http://armedservices.senate.gov/statemnt/2007/April/Smith2004- 26-07.pdf. One reason the United States does not face the level of homegrown terrorism threat that Europe has experienced is that immigrants are better integrated into American society. See James Fallows, Declaring Victory, The Atlantic, Sept. 2006, at 60 (“Something about the Arab and Muslim immigrants who have come to America, or about their absorption here, has made them basically similar to other well-assimilated American ethnic groups – and basically different from the estranged Muslim underclass of much of Europe.”). Working with these Muslim communities in the United States, and building trust, is one of the most promising avenues for deterring young people from extremism. See Muslim Public Affairs Council, The Impact of 9/11 on Muslim American Young People 1 (June 2007) (“The more narrow the orbit of acceptance is toward young Muslims who are traversing the various stages of adolescence toward becoming young professionals, the more likely we will begin to see serious cases of radicalization that can evolve into trends.”), available at http://www.mpac.org/publications/youth- paper/MPAC-Special-Report--Muslim-Youth.pdf.13 See also Stephen Magagnini, Local FBI chief rebuilds trust with Muslim leaders, Sacramento Bee, Dec. 1, 2008, available at http://www.sacbee.com/101/story/1438316.html. Policies that drive a wedge between these communities and the government or the rest of society frustrate efforts aimed at increasing trust and understanding and, instead, increase a sense of alienation. In 2008, the Department of Homeland Security issued a memorandum that reflects how seriously those with responsibility for protecting the territory and people of the United States take the battle for hearts and minds. It concludes that “Bin Laden and his followers will succeed if they convince large numbers of people that America and the West are at war with Islam and that a ‘clash of civilizations’ is inherent.” Memorandum from the U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims 7 (Jan. 2008). The DHS memorandum mphasized the importance of conveying the message that “Muslims have been, and will continue to be part of the fabric of our country. . . . We must emphasize that Muslims are not ‘outsiders’ looking in, but are an integral part of America and the West.” Id. at 8. This essential message is dramatically undermined by seizing and indefinitely detaining Muslims inside the United States on the basis of an executive branch allegation that they are enemy combatants. While this policy may not expressly target Muslims, it has been applied only against Muslims, as have nearly all of the harsh policies adopted after 9/11.14 This fuels the terrorist narrative of a war on Islam. The DHS memorandum clearly explains the danger inherent in inadvertently reinforcing al Qaeda’s propaganda. “Bin Laden’s narrative presumes a war against Islam and rampant mistreatment of Muslims by the American and other Western governments. Extremist recruiters argue that Muslims should segregate from the larger society; moreover, their recruitment pitch depends on isolation.” Memorandum from the U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims 8 (Jan. 2008). The terrorist seeks to undercut an individual’s sense of identity as a Muslim citizen of a state that values fair treatment and protects fundamental human rights. Policies that appear to accord Muslim suspects less than full equality under the law reinforce this dangerous and misleading message. See Islamic Extremism in Europe: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on European Affairs of the S. Foreign Relations Comm., 109th Cong. 7 (Apr. 5, 2006) (statement of Daniel Fried, Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs), available at http://foreign.senate.gov/testimony/2006/FriedTestimony060405.pdf (“We must also intensify our efforts to counter the extremist ideas that drive Islamic terrorism. . . . It . . . requires us to demonstrate through our own nation’s experience that Muslims can be patriotic, democratic, and religious at the same time.”). Senior Counterterrorism Analyst Gina Bennett, until recently the Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Transnational Threats, first highlighted the national security risk of a double standard in an intelligence assessment written back in 1993, which also provided the first serious warning about Usama Bin Laden. That assessment, titled “The Wandering Mujahidin: Armed and Dangerous,” concludes: “The growing perception by Muslims that the U.S. follows a double standard with regard to Islamic issues – particularly in Iraq, Bosnia, Algeria, and the Israelioccupied territories – heightens the possibility that Americans will become the targets of radical Muslims’ wrath. Afghan war veterans, scattered through the world, could surprise the U.S. with violence in unexpected locales.” Gina Bennett, The Wandering Mujahidin: Armed and Dangerous, Weekend Edition (U.S. Dep’t of State, Bureau of Intelligence and Research), Aug. 21-22, 1993, at 5, available at http://www.nationalsecuritymom.com/3/WanderingM ujahidin.pdf. The foresight of this analysis was tragically proven on September 11, 2001. The danger to Americans of sending a message that the United States has a double standard for Muslims can no longer be viewed as hypothetical. Nor is the impact of such messages considered hypothetical by those serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. As former Navy General Counsel Alberto Mora has testified, “there are serving U.S. flag-rank officers who maintain that the first and second identifiable causes of U.S. combat deaths in Iraq – as judged by their effectiveness in recruiting insurgent fighters into combat – are, respectively the symbols of Abu Ghraib and Guantánamo.” Hearing on the Treatment of Detainees in U.S. Custody Before the S. Comm. on Armed Services, 110th Cong. 5 (June 17, 2008) (statement of Alberta Mora, General Counsel, Dep’t of the Navy), available at http://armedservices.senate.gov/statemnt/2008/June/Mora2006- 17-08.pdf. Again, harsh policies and actions that were directed only against Muslims fueled recruitment efforts, with direct and deadly consequences. b. Military detention of Mr. al-Marri feeds the false narrative that the terrorists are holy warriors. By treating a terrorism suspect apprehended within the United States as an “enemy combatant,” rather than as a criminal suspect, we grant the suspect the very status a terrorist seeks, a status widely honored by those to whom terrorists propound their narrative. See Memorandum from the U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims 9 (Jan. 2008) (“Words matter. The terminology the United States uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology. Instead, United States’ terminology should depict the terrorists as the dangerous cult leaders they are. They have no honor, they have no dignity, and they offer no answers. While acknowledging that they have the capacity to destroy, we should constantly emphasize that they cannot build societies, and do not provide solutions to the problems people across the globe face.”). The dilemma we create for ourselves takes on particular force where, as here, military imprisonment is indefinite.15 As a military captive, the terrorism suspect is the continuing object of our own military force, and by imposing that force for an indefinite period of time, we continue to validate the terrorist narrative of the warrior and martyr. The prisoner may be regularly, if not constantly, in the public’s mind, always available as a source of inspiration. For example, a relatively insignificant Sudanese cameraman named Sami al Hajj became famous around the world by the mere fact of his long impris-onment at Guantanamo Bay as an enemy combatant. His captivity was regularly reported by al Jazeera and other Arabic news outlets, and closely followed by the more than a billion people reached by those outlets. See, e.g., Profile: Sami al-Hajj, Al Jazeera, May 2, 2008, available at http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2008/05/200 861505753353325.html; Sami al-Hajj Hits Out at U.S. Captors, Al Jazeera, May 31, 2008, available at http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/05/20086 150155542220.html. In contrast, treating the terrorism suspect seized in the United States as a criminal suspect pursuant to statutes that proscribe engagement in terrorist activity focuses the narrative on the alleged terrorist activity, rather than his status as “warrior,” thereby deconstructing the terrorist narrative. The heroism of armed conflict against the enemy becomes the cowardice of anonymous violence against innocent victims. The aspiring member of a great army, when isolated to his crime, becomes a small-minded individual. About a warrior held in a military prison an extravagant mythology may be erected; but the fellow in the dock of a public trial, forced to witness the deliberate presentation of evidence of his cowardice becomes pathetic. His narrative loses the power to inspire. Like Ramzi Yousef, Fawaz Yunis, and many others convicted of terrorist acts in U.S. courts, he may soon be forgotten. Thus, the Director of National Intelligence’s National Counterterrorism Center has urged intelligence professionals to Never use the terms “jihadist” or “mujahideen” in conversation to describe the terrorists. A mu-ahed, a holy warrior, is a positive characterization in the context of a just war. . . . Calling our enemies jihadists and their movement a global jihad unintentionally legitimizes their actions. Counterterrorism Communications Center, National Counterterrorism Center, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Words that Work and Words that Don’t: A Guide for Counterterrorism Communication, March 14, 2008, at 2; see also Memorandum from the U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Security, Terminology to Define the Terrorists: Recommendations from American Muslims 3 (Jan. 2008) (“The consensus is that we must carefully avoid giving bin Laden and other al-Qaeda leaders the legitimacy they crave, but do not possess, by characterizing them as religious figures, or in terms that may make them seem to be noble in the eyes of some.”). General Clark has also made this point: By treating such terrorists as combatants . . . we accord them a mark of respect and dignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. . . . If we are to defeat terrorists across the globe, we must do everything possible to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves. . . . . The more appropriate designation for terrorists is not “unlawful combatant” but the one long used by the United States: “criminal.” Wesley K. Clark and Kal Raustiala, Why Terrorists Aren’t Soldiers, N.Y.Times, Aug. 8, 2007, at A19. In sum, the government’s argument that national security concerns justify and require the indefinite emilitary imprisonment of Mr. al-Marri as an enemy combatant is precisely backwards. Using the paradigm of the “war on terror” and the label “enemy combatant” to justify the indefinite military detention of individuals seized inside the United States does not preserve our national security; it threatens it. Unwavering Commitment To America’s Fundamental Values Makes Our Nation Strong And Is Essential To Protect The Nation Against The Terrorist Threat. Discrediting the terrorist narrative and offering a positive alternative – i.e., a narrative of equality, justice, and commitment to the rule of law – is critical to effective counterterrorism strategy. The national security benefits of adhering to our fundamental principles are broadly understood. See Office of the Executive, National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, 2 (Feb. 2003) (The Bush Administration declared, in the 2003 National Strategy for Combating Terrorism, “We will use the power of our values to shape a free and more prosperous world. We will employ the legitimacy of our government and our cause to craft strong and agile partnerships.”); Michael German, Squaring the Error, in Law vs. War: Competing Approaches to Fighting Terrorism 11, 15-16 (Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 2005) (“This is a battle for legitimacy, and as such, it is one that we should easily win. As an open and free democracy regulated by the rule of law, we offer a future of peace and prosperity that the jihadist movement does not. . . . Respect for the rule of law, international conventions, and treaty obligations will not make us weaker, it will engender international cooperation and good will that make it impossible for extremist movements to prosper.”), available at http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/di splay.cfm?pubID=613; Dr. Kenneth Payne, Waging Communication War, Parameters: U.S. Army War College Quarterly, Summer 2008, at 37, 45 (“Effective communication rests on credibility; communications that are not believed are simply hot air.”). Ultimately, the most credible voices revealing the emptiness of the terrorist narrative will be Muslim voices. However, these voices are more likely to be heard if American policies do not hand a megaphone to al Qaeda and their ilk. The reality of a United States that is willing to fairly prosecute the terrorism suspect in a public trial will diminish and discredit the terrorists’ lies and strengthen the credibility of the counter-narrative. This is how violent extremism will ultimately be defeated. In the words of President Obama, “We know that to be truly secure, we must adhere to our values as vigilantly as we protect our safety – with no exceptions.” President-Elect Barack Obama, Remarks at Announcement of Intelligence Team (Jan. 9, 2009). CONCLUSION The decision in this case will reinforce one of two narratives – our own or the terrorist’s – and thereby either aid or encumber the Nation’s ongoing counterterrorism efforts. The Court should reverse.
Independent Judiciary Advantage

Judicial Independence
Now is the key time for judicial independence movements globally
Radio Free Europe 7/25/13 (Interview with US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, "U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan: 'There Are Always Bumps In The Road'," http://www.rferl.org/content/us-supreme-court-justice-elena-kagan-interview/25056808.html)
The nine judges of the United States Supreme Court have no armies, no police
AND
account, not to accede to everything that the powers that be want.
Current deference to the executive over detention policy has downed judicial independence
McCormack 8/20/13 (Wayne, E. W. Thode Professor of Law at the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law, "U.S. Judicial Independence: Victim in the “War on Terror”," https://today.law.utah.edu/projects/u-s-judicial-independence-victim-in-the-war-on-terror/)
One of the principal victims in the U.S. so-called “
AND
responsibility for abuses by government of which the judiciary is a part. ¶ 

US judicial independence is a key model – detention policy is used to justify abuses globally
CJA et al 3 ("Brief of the Center for Justice and Accountability, International League for Human Rights, and Individual Advocates for the Independence of the Judiciary in Emerging Democracies," October, Odah vs. USA and Rasul vs. Bush, http://jenner.com/system/assets/assets/5567/original/AmiciCuriae_Center_for_Justice_Int_League_Human_Rights_Adv_For_Indep_Judiciary2.pdf?1323207521)
Other Nations Have Curtailed Judicial Review During Times Of Crisis, Often Citing the United States' Example, And Individual Freedoms Have Diminished As A Result. While much of the world is moving to adopt the institutions necessary to secure individual rights, many still regularly abuse these rights. One of the hallmarks of tyranny is the lack of a strong and independent judiciary. Not surprisingly, where countries make the sad transition to tyranny, one of the first victims is the judiciary. Many of the rulers that go down that road justify their actions on the basis of national security and the fight against terrorism, and, disturbingly, many claim to be modeling their actions on the United States. Again, a few examples illustrate this trend. In Peru, one of former President Alberto Fujimori’s first acts in seizing control was to assume direct executive control of the judiciary, claiming that it was justified by the threat of domestic terrorism. He then imprisoned thousands, refusing the right of the judiciary to intervene. International Commission of Jurists, Attacks on Justice 2000-Peru, August 13, 2001, available at http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2587andlang=en (last visited Jan. 8, 2004). In Zimbabwe, President Mugabe’s rise to dictatorship has been punctuated by threats of violence to and the co-opting of the judiciary. He now enjoys virtually total control over Zimbabweans' individual rights and the entire political system. R.W. Johnson, Mugabe’s Agents in Plot to Kill Opposition Chief, Sunday Times (London), June 10, 2001; International Commission of Jurists, Attacks on Justice 2002— Zimbabwe, August 27, 2002, available at http://www.icj.org/news.php3?id_article=2695andlang=en (last visited Jan. 8, 2004). While Peru and Zimbabwe represent an extreme, the independence of the judiciary is under assault in less brazen ways in a variety of countries today. A highly troubling aspect of this trend is the fact that in many of these instances those perpetuating the assaults on the judiciary have pointed to the United States’ model to justify their actions. Indeed, many have specifically referenced the United States’ actions in detaining persons in Guantánamo Bay. For example, Rais Yatim, Malaysia's "de facto law minister" explicitly relied on the detentions at Guantánamo to justify Malaysia's detention of more than 70 suspected Islamic militants for over two years. Rais stated that Malyasia's detentions were "just like the process in Guantánamo," adding, "I put the equation with Guantánamo just to make it graphic to you that this is not simply a Malaysian style of doing things." Sean Yoong, "Malaysia Slams Criticism of Security Law Allowing Detention Without Trial," Associated Press, September 9, 2003 (available from Westlaw at 9/9/03 APWIRES 09:34:00). Similarly, when responding to a United States Government human rights report that listed rights violations in Namibia, Namibia's Information Permanent Secretary Mocks Shivute cited the Guantánamo Bay detentions, claiming that "the US government was the worst human rights violator in the world." BBC Monitoring, March 8, 2002, available at 2002 WL 15938703. Nor is this disturbing trend limited to these specific examples. At a recent conference held at the Carter Center in Atlanta, President Carter, specifically citing the Guantánamo Bay detentions, noted that the erosion of civil liberties in the United States has "given a blank check to nations who are inclined to violate human rights already." Doug Gross, "Carter: U.S. human rights missteps embolden foreign dictators," Associated Press Newswires, November 12, 2003 (available from Westlaw at 11/12/03 APWIRES 00:30:26). At the same conference, Professor Saad Ibrahim of the American University in Cairo (who was jailed for seven years after exposing fraud in the Egyptian election process) said, "Every dictator in the world is using what the United States has done under the Patriot Act . . . to justify their past violations of human rights and to declare a license to continue to violate human rights." Id. Likewise, Shehu Sani, president of the Kaduna, Nigeriabased Civil Rights Congress, wrote in the International Herald Tribune on September 15, 2003 that "the insistence by the Bush administration on keeping Taliban and Al Quaeda captives in indefinite detention in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, instead of in jails in the United States — and the White House's preference for military tribunals over regular courts — helps create a free license for tyranny in Africa. It helps justify Egypt's move to detain human rights campaigners as threats to national security, and does the same for similar measures by the governments of Ivory Coast, Cameroon and Burkina Faso." Available at http://www.iht.com/ihtsearch.php?id=109927andowner=(IHT)anddat e=20030121123259. In our uni-polar world, the United States obviously sets an important example on these issues. As reflected in the foundational documents of the United Nations and many other such agreements, the international community has consistently affirmed the value of an independent judiciary to the defense of universally recognized human rights. In the crucible of actual practice within nations, many have looked to the United States model when developing independent judiciaries with the ability to check executive power in the defense of individual rights. Yet others have justified abuses by reference to the conduct of the United States. Far more influential than the words of Montesquieu and Madison are the actions of the United States. This case starkly presents the question of which model this Court will set for the world. This case starkly presents the question of which model this Court will set for the world. CONCLUSION Much of the world models itself after this country’s two hundred year old traditions — and still more on its day to day  implementation and expression of those traditions. To say  that a refusal to exercise jurisdiction in this case will have  global implications is not mere rhetoric. Resting on this  Court’s decision is not only the necessary role this Court has ¶ historically played in this country. Also at stake are the  freedoms that many in emerging democracies around the globe  seek to ensure for their peoples.

US constitutional jurisprudence and decisions are modeled by Latin America
Mirow 7 (M.C., Asst Prof of Law @ Florida International, "Marbury in Mexico: Judicial Review's Precocious Southern Migration," http://www.hastingsconlawquarterly.org/archives/V35/I1/Mirow.pdf)
In an era in which the use of foreign sources by the United States¶
AND
provisions and procedures for the¶ protection of constitutional rights in Mexico.23
Independent judiciaries are key to Latin American stability
Cooper 8 (James, Institute Professor of Law and an Assistant Dean at California Western School of Law, "COMPETING LEGAL CULTURES AND LEGAL REFORM: THE BATTLE OF CHILE," 29 Mich. J. Int'l L. 501, lexis)
The legal transplantation process involves, by its very nature, the adoption of,
AND
, merely a slot machine for justice that applies the various codes. n85

Latin America instability results in regional conflict escalation and disease spread
Manwaring ‘5 (Max G., Retired U.S. Army colonel and an Adjunct Professor of International Politics at Dickinson College, October 2005, http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/pub628.pdf)
President Chávez also understands that the process leading to state failure is the most dangerous long-term security challenge facing the global community today. The argument in general is that failing and failed state status is the breeding ground for instability, criminality, insurgency, regional conflict, and terrorism. These conditions breed massive humanitarian disasters and major refugee flows. They can host “evil” networks of all kinds, whether they involve criminal business enterprise, narco-trafficking, or some form of ideological crusade such as Bolivarianismo. More specifically, these conditions spawn all kinds of things people in general do not like such as murder, kidnapping, corruption, intimidation, and destruction of infrastructure. These means of coercion and persuasion can spawn further human rights violations, torture, poverty, starvation, disease, the recruitment and use of child soldiers, trafficking in women and body parts, trafficking and proliferation of conventional weapons systems and WMD, genocide, ethnic cleansing, warlordism, and criminal anarchy. At the same time, these actions are usually unconfined and spill over into regional syndromes of poverty, destabilization, and conflict .62 Peru’s Sendero Luminoso calls violent and destructive activities that facilitate the processes of state failure “armed propaganda.” Drug cartels operating throughout the Andean Ridge of South America and elsewhere call these activities “business incentives.” Chávez considers these actions to be steps that must be taken to bring about the political conditions necessary to establish Latin American socialism for the 21st century.63 Thus, in addition to helping to provide wider latitude to further their tactical and operational objectives, state and nonstate actors’ strategic efforts are aimed at progressively lessening a targeted regime’s credibility and capability in terms of its ability and willingness to govern and develop its national territory and society. Chávez’s intent is to focus his primary attack politically and psychologically on selected Latin American governments’ ability and right to govern. In that context, he understands that popular perceptions of corruption, disenfranchisement, poverty, and lack of upward mobility limit the right and the ability of a given regime to conduct the business of the state. Until a given populace generally perceives that its government is dealing with these and other basic issues of political, economic, and social injustice fairly and effectively, instability and the threat of subverting or destroying such a government are real.64 But failing and failed states simply do not go away. Virtually anyone can take advantage of such an unstable situation. The tendency is that the best motivated and best armed organization on the scene will control that instability. As a consequence, failing and failed states become dysfunctional states, rogue states, criminal states, narco-states, or new people’s democracies. In connection with the creation of new people’s democracies, one can rest assured that Chávez and his Bolivarian populist allies will be available to provide money, arms, and leadership at any given opportunity. And, of course, the longer dysfunctional, rogue, criminal, and narco-states and people’s democracies persist, the more they and their associated problems endanger global security, peace, and prosperity.65

Latin American instability undermines US global leadership
Sabatini and Berger 12 (Christopher Sabatini is the editor-in-chief of Americas Quarterly and senior director of policy at Americas Society/Council of the Americas. Ryan Berger is a policy associate at the Americas Society/Council of the Americas. The views in this article are solely those of Christopher Sabatini and Ryan Berger, Why the U.S. can't afford to ignore Latin America, June 2012,http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/13/why-the-u-s-cant-afford-to-ignore-latin-america/)

Yes, we get it. The relative calm south of the United States seems
AND
S. “backyard” that is outside broader, global strategic concerns.
US primacy prevents global nuclear conflict - withdrawal sparks power vacuums and global transition wars
Brooks et al 13 (Stephen G. Brooks is Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College.G. John Ikenberry is the Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs at Princeton University in the Department of Politics and the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. He is also a Global Eminence Scholar at Kyung Hee University.William C. Wohlforth is the Daniel Webster Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. “Don't Come Home, America: The Case against Retrenchment”, Winter 2013, Vol. 37, No. 3, Pages 7-51,http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/ISEC_a_00107)

A core premise of deep engagement is that it prevents the emergence of a far
AND
case would generate intensely competitive behavior, possibly including regional great power war). 

Disease pandemics cause extinction
Keating 9 (Joshua – Foreign Policy web editor , "The End of the World," Foreign Policy, 11-13-9, www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/11/13/the_end_of_the_world?page=full)
How it could happen: Throughout history, plagues have brought civilizations to their knees
AND
. Biological weapons experimentation has added a new and just as troubling complication.
Now is key for African independent judiciaries – they’re integral to stability
Mogoeng 13 (June 25, The Hon. Mogoeng Mogoeng Chief Justice of South Africa, “Transcript: The Rule of Law in South Africa: Measuring Judicial Performance and Meeting Standards” http://www.tradingplaces2night.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/250613Mogoeng.pdf)
Even if all others were to be unable to give practical expression to the rule
AND
of capacity by African judiciaries and governments to facilitate an investor friendly environment.
US judicial independence is crucial to democratic consolidation and stability in Latin America and Africa
CJA et al 3 ("Brief of the Center for Justice and Accountability, International League for Human Rights, and Individual Advocates for the Independence of the Judiciary in Emerging Democracies," October, Odah vs. USA and Rasul vs. Bush, http://jenner.com/system/assets/assets/5567/original/AmiciCuriae_Center_for_Justice_Int_League_Human_Rights_Adv_For_Indep_Judiciary2.pdf?1323207521)
Many of the newly independent governments that have ¶ proliferated over the past five decades have adopted these ¶ ideals. They have emerged from a variety of less-than-free ¶ contexts, including the end of European colonial rule in the ¶ 1950's and 1960's, the end of the Cold War and the breakup of ¶ the former Soviet Union in the late 1980's and 1990's, the ¶ disintegration of Yugoslavia, and the continuing turmoil in ¶ parts of Africa, Latin America and southern Asia. Some ¶ countries have successfully transitioned to stable and ¶ democratic forms of government that protect individual ¶ freedoms and human rights by means of judicial review by a ¶ strong and independent judiciary. Others have suffered the ¶ rise of tyrannical and oppressive rulers who consolidated their ¶ hold on power in part by diminishing or abolishing the role of ¶ the judiciary. And still others hang in the balance, struggling ¶ against the onslaught of tyrants to establish stable, democratic ¶ governments. ¶ In their attempts to shed their tyrannical pasts and to ensure ¶ the protection of individual rights, emerging democracies have ¶ consistently looked to the United States and its Constitution in ¶ fashioning frameworks that safeguard the independence of ¶ their judiciaries. See Ran Hirschl, The Political Origins of ¶ Judicial Empowerment through Constitutionalization: ¶ Lessons from Four Constitutional Revolutions, 25 Law and Soc. ¶ Inquiry 91, 92 (2000) (stating that of the “many countries . . ¶ . that have engaged in fundamental constitutional reform ¶ over the past three decades,” nearly all adopted “a bill of ¶ rights and established some form of active judicial review”). ¶ Establishing judicial review by a strong and independent ¶ judiciary is a critical step in stabilizing and protecting these ¶ new democracies. See Christopher M. Larkins, Judicial ¶ Independence and Democratization: A Theoretical and ¶ Conceptual Analysis, 44 Am. J. Comp. L. 605, 605-06 (1996) ¶ (describing the judicial branch as having "a uniquely ¶ important role" in transitional countries, not only to "mediate ¶ conflicts between political actors but also to prevent the ¶ arbitrary exercise of government power; see also Daniel C. ¶ Prefontaine and Joanne Lee, The Rule of Law and the ¶ Independence of the Judiciary, International Centre for ¶ Criminal Law Reform and Criminal Justice Policy (1998) ¶ ("There is increasing acknowledgment that an independent ¶ judiciary is the key to upholding the rule of law in a free ¶ society . . . . Most countries in transition from dictatorships ¶ and/or statist economies recognize the need to create a more ¶ stable system of governance, based on the rule of law."), ¶ available at¶ http://www.icclr.law.ubc.ca/Publications/Reports/RuleofLaw.¶ pdf (last visited Jan. 8, 2004). Although the precise form of ¶ government differs among countries, “they ultimately ¶ constitute variations within, not from, the American model of ¶ constitutionalism . . . a specific set of fundamental rights and ¶ liberties has the status of supreme law, is entrenched against ¶ amendment or repeal . . . and is enforced by an independent ¶ court . . . .” Stephen Gardbaum, The New Commonwealth ¶ Model of Constitutionalism, 49 Am. J. Comp. L. 707, 718 ¶ (2001). ¶ This phenomenon became most notable worldwide after ¶ World War II when certain countries, such as Germany, Italy, ¶ and Japan, embraced independent judiciaries following their ¶ bitter experiences under totalitarian regimes. See id. at 714-¶ 15; see also United States v. Then, 56 F.3d 464, 469 (2d Cir. ¶ 1995) (Calabresi, J., concurring) (“Since World War II, many ¶ countries have adopted forms of judicial review, which — ¶ though different from ours in many particulars — ¶ unmistakably draw their origin and inspiration from American ¶ constitutional theory and practice. See generally Mauro ¶ Cappelletti, The Judicial Process in Comparative Perspective¶ (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989).”). It is a trend that ¶ continues to this day.¶ It bears mention that the United States has consistently ¶ affirmed and encouraged the establishment of independent ¶ judiciaries in emerging democracies. In September 2000, ¶ President Clinton observed that "without the rule of law, ¶ elections simply offer a choice of dictators. . . . America's ¶ experience should be put to use to advance the rule of law, ¶ where democracy's roots are looking for room and strength to ¶ grow." Remarks at Georgetown University Law School, 36 ¶ Weekly Comp. Pres. Doc. 2218 (September 26, 2000), ¶ available at http://clinton6.nara.gov/2000/09/2000-09-26-¶ remarks-by-president-at-georgetown-international-lawcenter.html. The United States acts on these principles in part ¶ through the assistance it provides to developing nations. For ¶ example, the United States requires that any country seeking ¶ assistance through the Millenium Challenge Account, a ¶ development assistance program instituted in 2002, must ¶ demonstrate, among other criteria, an "adherence to the rule of ¶ law." The White House noted that the rule of law is one of the ¶ "essential conditions for successful development" of these ¶ countries. See ¶ http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/developingnations (last ¶ visited Jan. 8, 2004).12
Independent, judicial checks on executive power are key to African rule of law – that’s vital for political and economic stability
Mbaku 13 (John Mukum, Presidential Distinguished Professor of Economics, Willard L. Eccles Professor of Economics, and John S. Hinckley Research Fellow at Weber State University, "PROVIDING A FOUNDATION FOR WEALTH CREATION AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA: THE ROLE OF THE RULE OF LAW," 38 Brooklyn J. Int'l L. 959, lexis)
These priorities are all interrelated. For example, the failure of African governments to
AND
provide the environment for peaceful coexistence, wealth creation, and democratic governance.
Instability and conflict escalate to great power war
Glick 7 (Caroline, Senior Middle East Fellow – Center for Security Policy, “Condi’s African Holiday”, 12-12, http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/home.aspx?sid=56andcategoryid=56andsubcategoryid=90andnewsid=11568)
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice introduced a new venue for her superficial and destructive
AND
waters of the Nile River which flows through all countries of the region.
Goes nuclear
Lancaster 00 (Carol, Associate Professor and Director of the Master's of Science in Foreign Service Program – Georgetown University, “Redesigning Foreign Aid”, Foreign Affairs, September / October, Lexis)
THE MOST BASIC CHALLENGE facing the United States today is helping to preserve peace.
AND
weapons of mass destruction, these wars could prove more dangerous than ever.

African stability is vital to the global economy
Business Day 13 (January 18,  Ivor Ichikowitz, “Stability in Africa now key to world economy” http://www.bdlive.co.za/world/africa/2013/01/18/stability-in-africa-now-key-to-world-economy)
A significant change in the way the world’s leaders are starting to see Africa was
AND
investment in things such as infrastructure, health, education and public transport.

Economic decline causes nuclear war
Harris and Burrows, 9 – *counselor in the National Intelligence Council, the principal drafter of Global Trends 2025, member of the NIC’s Long Range Analysis Unit “Revisiting the Future: Geopolitical Effects of the Financial Crisis”, Washington Quarterly, http://www.twq.com/09april/docs/09apr_burrows.pdf)

Increased Potential for Global Conflict Of course, the report encompasses more than economics and
AND
within and between states in a more dog-eat-dog world.

African instability creates massive incentives to exploit and destroy forests of the Congo River Basin
Sites 4 (Kevin, Conflict Studies Expert @ World Wildlife Fund, "Conflict in the Green Heart of Africa," http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/where_we_work/congo_basin_forests/problems/conflict/)

In the Congo River Basin, conflict has been a recurring nuisance for the development
AND
ivory and bushmeat, felling of timber and agricultural encroachment often increases.5

Destruction of the Congo River Basin forests ensures planetary extinction
Boukongou 5 (Jean Didier, Professor – Central African Catholic University (Cameroon), “The Protection of the Congo basin: A Multilateral Challenge", www.african-geopolitics.org/show.aspx?ArticleId=3836#_ftn1)

This is not a revival of “good savage” ideology which is useful for
AND
world treasure,” a “world lung” necessary for preserving biologic diversity.

Supreme court action to restrict detention powers is key
Reinhardt 6 (Stephen, Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, "The Judicial Role in National Security," http://www.bu.edu/law/central/jd/organizations/journals/bulr/volume86n5/documents/REINHARDTv.2.pdf)

The role of judges during times of war – whether it be a traditional war
AND
to turn ¶ into a routine licensing of unbridled and unsupervised governmental power. 

Supreme court action is key to end indefinite detention and affirm the court’s duty and independence
Martin 13 (Ronald, Contributor @ Tenth Amendment Center, "Indefinite Detention is Patently Unconstitutional," http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/27/indefinite-detention-is-patently-unconstitutional/#.Uhj8TJLqnoI)

In January 2012, New York Times Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Christopher Hedges filed a
AND
and objective fear of detention , and should be affirmed” as Unconstitutional.

Correlational studies prove - US judicial independence is modeled globally
Goldbach, Brake and Katzenstein 13 (Toby, Benjamin, and Peter, Doctor of the Science of Law (J.S.D.) at Cornell University Law School and was the Rudolf B. Schlesinger Research Fellow for 2011-2012 + foreign affairs officer at the U.S. Department of State, Walter S. Carpenter, Jr. Professor of International Studies at Cornell University, "The Movement of U.S. Criminal and Administrative Law: Processes of Transplanting and Translating," 20 Ind. J. Global Leg. Stud. 141, lexis) 

The transplanting of foreign laws by some countries, however, reveals a transplant bias
AND
media, n50 formalism of judicial procedures, n51 and judicial independence. n52
Plan
The United States federal judiciary should rule that the President of the United States lacks the authority to detain individuals indefinitely.