Tournament: kentucky | Round: 2 | Opponent: georgia dg | Judge: gabe

Welcome to the Predator Empire—executive authority over targeted killing is increasingly constituted by a disposition matrix that relies on an ethos of precision and total knowledge about the targets—this embeds an everywhere war into the fabric of political planning

Shaw 13—School of Geographical and Earth Sciences, The University of Glasgow, Scotland
(Ian, and#34;Predator Empire: The Geopolitics of US Drone Warfareand#34;, Geopolitics Volume 18, Issue 3, 2013, dml)

Since 2010, Obama administration of?cials have busily constructed a database for administering life and
AND
Orwellian terminology, is very much the new face of an old Empire.
Of course, the post-2001 and#34;Global War on Terrorand#34; began its
AND
of US national security under a label I name the and#34;Predator Empireand#34;.
The MQ-1 Predator (see Figure 1) is perhaps the most well
AND
ethos of US military culture and politics for a century or moreand#34;.11
The modern Predator drone dates back to the GNAT-750 (and and#34;Amber
AND
increase by 10, from an inventory of and#34;30 to 35and#34;.17
The CIA’s drone programme in Pakistan emerges from a history of targeted killings and counterinsurgencies
AND
are kept secret not just from the public but from the courtsand#34;.27
As I will soon argue, drones were already cementing their position as a favoured
AND
the changing face of US national security or the and#34;Washington Rulesand#34;.34
I employ the provocative concept and#34;Predator Empireand#34; as a way of bringing together
AND
in and#34;real timeand#34; is what marks the Predator Empire as distinctive.

Wedding information to targeting has enabled a drive for absolute sovereign power that strives to manage life and death based on hypothetical risk scenarios crafted from its accumulated knowledge—this knowledge is always-already incomplete but the Predator Empire blames resultant failures on human error and not the fallibility of its technology—this reduces the bodies of targets to mere information and removes accountability from warfare

Wilcox 9—Macalester
(Lauren, and#34;Body Counts: The Politics of Embodiment in Precision Warfareand#34;, International Studies Association Annual Conference and#34;Global Governance: Political Authority in Transitionand#34;, dml)

Precision bombing, like its less accurate predecessor strategic bombing, is an exercise of
AND
) lives is necessary for the strategic and political success of the war.
Precision warfare involves the management of risk and the management of death. Throughout the
AND
out targets cleanly with little risk to the surroundings are largely a myth.
Foucault’s critique of power/knowledge is also particularly relevant in terms of precision bombing
AND
objects of that knowledge, produced as potential terrorists under the disciplining gaze.
Precision warfare is also characterized by risk-aversion in both the means of fighting
AND
and danger on one hand, and technologies of control on the other.
Cyborg/Prosthetic bodies
Feminist and other critical scholars have argued that discourses of dehumanization have enabled killings to
AND
massacres, as well as indirect victims of infrastructural damage (Shaw 2002).
By privileging the question of just how ’precise’ precision weapons are, both proponent
AND
remove risk, contingency from the battle space and to have total control. 

This method of management marks certain lives as killable based on their potential acts in imagined scenarios—this securitization of the future is theoretically incoherent and can only result in endless violence

Stockdale 10—Department of Political Science at McMaster University
(Liam, and#34;Securitizing the Future? A Critical Interrogation of the Pre-emptive Turn in the Theory and Practice of Contemporary Securityand#34;, Presented at the Canadian Political Science Association Annual Conference Concordia University, Montréal, QC 1-3 June 2010, dml)

The preceding discussion has shown how the problem of uncertainty dictates that the logic of
AND
than past crimeand#34; (Ericson 2008: 63,my emphasis). 3
With the sovereign decision thus contingent upon imagined scenarios rather than explicit knowledge, a
AND
potential for each individual to be subject to its violences is always present.
The implications of this determination for everyday life in ostensibly liberal polities are significant.
AND
emption and#34;does not take seriously enough the downside of getting things wrong.and#34;
Thus, to summarize, under the logic of pre-emption, securing the
AND
in lieu of all(risky) others at some indefinite future point.
A Logic of Absurdity
While a vast catalogue of literature has problematized states of exception akin to that which
AND
be realized, thus permanently instantiating a state of exception in the present.
To elaborate upon this point—albeit at the risk of descending into obscure hypotheticals
AND
in pursuit of securing what is the new future, and so on.
The logical absurdities underwriting the idea of pre-emptive security thus become clearer,
AND
present is inevitably and perpetually subject to arbitrary and potentially violent sovereign interventions.

Prefer our framing of violence—problematizing the normative structures that shape how bodies are targeted is critical to understanding how and why violence occurs in concretized scenarios

Lloyd 6—Loughborough University
(Moya, and#34;Who counts? Understanding the relation between normative violence and the production of political bodiesand#34;, paper presented to the panel: ’Power, Violence and the Body’ Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association Philadelphia, 31 August – 3 rd September 2006, dml)

It might be objected, of course, that extending the idea of violence any
AND
how this argument works, I now want to turn to Precarious Life.

We’re not superhuman—this politics of controllability culminates in extinction—the aff is a paradigm shift that forces us to recognize the futility of our efforts to rationally manage the world—this is the prerequisite to a politics that better addresses global problems

Peat 8 – theoretical physicist, Ph.D., founder of the Pari Centre for New Learning
(F. David, and#34;Gentle Action: Surviving Chaos and Changeand#34;, http://www.gentleaction.org/library/paper2.php-http://www.gentleaction.org/library/paper2.php, dml)

Many rapid changes that are taking place around us. These include globalization, developments
AND
change and engage in those actions that are appropriate to each new situation. 

Our advocacy is to say no to the executive’s authority to engage in targeted killing.

Rowan 5—University of London Department of Geography, the best article titler in the world
(Rory, and#34;Imagine a Boot Stamping on Your Face Inde?nitely: The ’War On Terror’ and Executive Hegemonyand#34;, Anamesa vol 3 issue 1, spring 2005, dml)

The French legal theorist Julien Freund warned, in his analysis of Carl Schmitt’s work
AND
of language, and, once again, we must say and#34;no.and#34;

Legalism cannot be neutral—how we produce knowledge about the law shapes how it is both interpreted and enforced—the aff is necessary to understand how executive authority over targeted killing exists in the first place—this is the prerequisite to crafting meaningful legal restrictions

Krasmann 12—prof. Dr, Institute for Criminological Research, University of Hamburg ~added the word and#34;theand#34; for correct sentence structure—denoted by brackets~
(Susanne, and#34;Targeted Killing and Its Law: On a Mutually Constitutive Relationshipand#34;, Leiden Journal of International Law (2012), 25, pp. 665–682, dml)

It was only with President Barack Obama’s ’drone program’30 that targeted killing operations were
AND
required, according to US State Department Legal Advisor Harald S. Koh:
Some have argued that the use of lethal force against specific individuals fails to provide adequate process and thus constitutes unlawful extrajudicial killing. But a state that is engaged in an armed conflict or in legitimate self-defense is not required to provide targets with legal process before the state may use lethal force.33
At the very same moment as targeted killing entered the public stage, it became legalizable. It did so as a security dispositif by locating itself within the legal discourse and at the same time relocating elementary conceptions of existing international law.
It was the identification of a new dimension of threats that, in the first
AND
of a confrontation between states, but rather the concerted acts of individuals.
If targeted killing could re-emerge as a new phenomenon and legitimate subject of
AND
acceptance in turn is evidence of a new security dispositif’s becoming the norm.
Within a Foucauldian perspective, talk about a new security dispositif does not imply that
AND
kinds of concept underlie legal norms and are being inscribed into the law.
3. A FOUCAULDIAN PERSPECTIVE ON LAW
Foucault did not elaborate on a comprehensive theory of law – a fact that critics
AND
discourse on targeted killing, but notably the relationship between law and security.
According to Foucault, social phenomena cannot be isolated from and are only decipherable within
AND
merely address and describe their subject; they constitute or produce it.53
Law is to be approached accordingly.54 It cannot be extracted from the forms
AND
the application of norms, legal reasoning is on the production of norms.
Legality, within this account of law, then, is not only due to
AND
the first instance, conceiving of and receiving the subject in legal terms.
When targeted killing surfaced on the political stage, appropriate laws appeared to be already
AND
since the addressed is no longer a state, but a terrorist network.
However, to conceive of law as a practice does not imply that law would
AND
norms proves to be a tool for introducing a new reading of law.