Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 1 | Opponent: California, Berkeley Wimsatt-Sergent-Leventhal | Judge: Johnson
ADV 1: Democratic Deliberation
Today’s security apparatus views the public as incapable of making decisions about self-defense. This has created a legitimacy deficit that prevents public from calling for transparency or challenging executive security decisions.
Rana 12 Aziz Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School; A.B., Harvard College; J.D., Yale Law School; PhD., Harvard University. Connecticut Law Review July, 2012 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1417 COMMENTARY: NATIONAL SECURITY: LEAD ARTICLE: Who Decides on Security?, lexis

Despite over six decades of reform initiatives, the overwhelming drift of security arrangements in
AND
and then to watch those branches delegate such power back to the executive.

The executive’s use of the state secrets privilege assumes judges don’t have the expertise to decide issues of national security.
Chehab 11 Ahmad Georgetown University Law Center Spring, 2011 Wayne Law Review 57 Wayne L. Rev. 335 THE BUSH AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS' INVOCATION OF THE STATE SECRET PRIVILEGE IN NATIONAL SECURITY LITIGATION: A PROPOSAL FOR ROBUST JUDICIAL REVIEW, lexis

Part IV proposes several possible methods of examining the reliability and merit of SSP usage
AND
some sort of concrete damage toward a particular litigant or class of litigants.

A vibrant public sphere is ONLY WAY to check gross forms of national security utilitarianism

Williams 8  *Daniel R, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law.
Penn State Law Review, Summer, 113 Penn St. L. Rev. 55

The classic Frankfurt School diagnosis of American culture is grim and pessimistic. Jurgen Habermas
AND
Habermas regard "the public sphere as the definitive institution of democracy." 164 

Self-imposed exile and fear of the public sphere is pushing us to the brink of annihilation 

Williams 8  *Daniel R, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law.
Penn State Law Review, Summer, 113 Penn St. L. Rev. 55

B. The Underbelly of the Enlightenment Heritage - the Weberian Nightmare What has heretofore
AND
upon which those slaughtered cultures built their now-defunct way of life.
We need a sustained public debate about the validity of secrecy to challenge the assumptions about security decisions and expertise.
Rana 12 Aziz Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School; A.B., Harvard College; J.D., Yale Law School; PhD., Harvard University. Connecticut Law Review July, 2012 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1417 COMMENTARY: NATIONAL SECURITY: LEAD ARTICLE: Who Decides on Security?, lexis

If the objective sociological claims at the center of the modern security concept are themselves
AND
, we can expect our prevailing security arrangements to become ever more entrenched.

Public debate is key to transform political culture.
Giroux 13 Henry A. | currently holds the Global TV Network Chair Professorship at McMaster University in the English and Cultural Studies Department and a Distinguished Visiting Professorship at Ryerson University. The Shooting Gallery: Obama and the Vanishing Point of Democracy, Truthout, 2-12

At a time in history when American society is overtly subject to the quasi militarization
AND
are now in the shooting gallery and we are all potentially the targets.
ADV 2: Targeted Killing
Public debate about drone policy is on the rise. Obama’s latest attempts at transparency are REACTIONS to the public debate. The administration is on the defensive and looking for ways to justify its policies
Herb and Sink 13 Jeremy Herb and Justin Sink 03/08/13 (The Hill, Obama Faces Turning Point on Drone Policy)  
The public address by Obama highlights the administration’s understanding that it needs to give a
AND
needs to be heard. And Rand Paul made it heard last night.”

Obama proposed a drone court to Congress to increase transparency.
The Guardian 13 “Obama drone oversight proposal prompts concern over 'kill courts'” May 24 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/may/24/obama-drone-vetting-kill-courts
Proposals to vet future US drone strikes risk creating "kill courts" according to
AND
but raises serious constitutional issues about presidential and judicial authority," he said.

Ex Ante review would provide a veil of legitimacy while rubber-stamping the administration’s expansion of its campaign of global terror

Vladeck 13 Steve Vladeck 02/10/13 (Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security law, and international criminal law. “Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might...”, LawFare, from a conference hosted by Columbia Law School on targeted killings.)
That brings me to perhaps the biggest problem we should all have with a “
AND
and practically possible, a drone court would be a very dangerous idea.
Drone strikes cause thousands of civilian deaths and do psychological violence to those who must constantly live with the threat of a strike.
Stanford Human Rights Clinic 12 “Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan” Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (IHRCRC) and Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law September http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is
AND
loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.

Plan
The United States Congress should create a statutory cause of action for damages for those unlawfully injured by targeted killing operations or their heirs that overrides the state secrets and official immunity doctrine and replaces them with carefully considered procedures for balancing the secrecy concerns.

Solvency
The plan overcomes current legal barriers to judicial review.
Vladeck 13 Steve Vladeck 02/10/13 (Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security law, and international criminal law. “Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might...”, LawFare, from a conference hosted by Columbia Law School on targeted killings.)

At first blush, it may seem like many of these issues would be equally
AND
not most–of these cases, these legal issues would be overcome.
Law suits are a visible platform to spur public debates about human rights and generate media attention about executive secrecy.
Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law “The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests” May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

This chapter suggests the judiciary may play an important role in the debate over the
AND
Even the threat of such a judicial role may influence executive branch behavior.
Mobilizing civil society organizations is the most effective way to retrain executive power.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

The force of ordinary electoral politics also cannot account for the shift in U.
AND
law will have substantial deterrent effect, with or without actual court decisions.

The aff advances a broader movement for more transparency and public accountability in war-making- we need to bring the debate to the public
Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law “The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests” May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

When the executive branch began deploying drones to engage in targeted killings, the public
AND
this area and the future prospect for such rulings seem quite dim.166

Courts are rallying point
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Learned Hand's assertion that as long as "liberty lies in the hearts of men
AND
can and often do enforce constitutional rights where the political branches would not.

Bivens innovations spillover – executives will try to demonstrate that they’re making improvements in other areas 

Margulies 10 * Peter, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Judging Myopia in Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, and the Rule of Law, 96 IOWA L. REV. 195

A carefully crafted damages remedy restrains official myopia and thereby curbs this counterproductive cycle.
AND
policy that Justice Kennedy identified in Boumediene as a central threat to constitutionalism.

Civil society organizations write the dominant narrative that influences court and executive decision
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Like the popular constitutionalists, Joseph Margulies and Hope Metcalf criticize post-9/
AND
and sustaining that culture, and to invoking it in times of crisis.

Probability should be evaluated before magnitude- each internal link makes their scenario less likely.
Rescher in 83, Prof. of Philosophy Nicholas Rescher, University of Pittsburgh Professor of Philosophy, “Risk: A Philosophical Introduction to the Theory of Risk Evaluation and Management” 1983
On this issue there is a systemic disagreement between pro- babilists working in mathematics
AND
. Probabilities below the     threshold are treated as though they were zero.'3
People have a cognitive bias against high probability-low magnitude impacts. You should undervalue their DAs – the longer the chain of events the less likely the scenario
Yudkowsky 6 Eliezer, 8/31/2006. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence Palo Alto, CA. “Cognitive biases potentially affecting judgment of global risks, Forthcoming in Global Catastrophic Risks, eds. Nick Bostrom and Milan Cirkovic,singinst.org/upload/cognitive-biases.pdf.
4. The Conjunction Fallacy Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken,
AND
a futurist, disjunctions make for an awkward and unpoetic-sounding prophecy.

Courts are critical to de-normalize the Jack Bauer syndrome

Delmas 6, Candice, Pf Philosophy, Georgia State University, "Liberalism and the Worst-Result Principle: Preventing Tyranny, Protecting Civil Liberty" Philosophy Theses. Paper 14.

If Endo can be seen as typical of effective judicial review, Hirabayashi and Korematsu
AND
court is a central element in the liberal project of safeguarding civil liberty.

Tournament: Shirley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Dimitrijevic-Taylor | Judge: Paul
There is a growing cacophony of voices bringing attention to the deaths of civilians by drone strikes- from the reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the UN special reports. But still, not enough Americans are listening. The Rehman family flew 7,000 miles to tell their story at a Congressional hearing and only 5 members of Congress showed up. We need a mobilized community to restrain future use of drones.
Madea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK in 2013 Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. “Drone Victims Come Out of the Shadows” Nov 5 http://fpif.org/drone-victims-come-shadows/?utm_source=feedburnerandutm_medium=feedandutm_campaign=Feed3A+FPIF+28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+28All+News2929
At each of the over 200 cities I’ve traveled to this past year with my
AND
victims. Check here to register for the summit or watch the livestream.

The current rhetoric about drone use focuses on the number of civilian versus militant deaths, but this distinction ignores the question of whether or not the drones were legal in the first place and allows the government to assert legal justifications to continue drone use.
Rona 13 Gabor, International Legal Director of Human Rights First, Gabor Rona advises Human Rights First programs on questions of international law, http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/10/gabor-rona-of-human-rights-first-responds/
But I wish Ritika had put a bit more underlying law into her analysis,
AND
operations, we will continue to undercount the number of people illegally killed.

Six months after Obama’s promise of transparency, there is still too much we don’t know about the drone program. Additional oversight is insufficient to lead to public disclosure or accountability.
Currier 11/5 Cora Currier was previously on the editorial staff of the New Yorker. “6 Months After Obama Promised to Divulge More on Drones, Here’s What We Still Don’t Know” Nov 5 http://www.propublica.org/article/6-months-after-obama-promised-to-divulge-more-on-drones-heres-what-we-still
Nearly six months ago, President Obama promised more transparency and tighter policies around targeted
AND
has also so far fought off disclosure of legal memos underpinning targeted killings.
Plan
The United States Congress should create a statutory cause of action for damages for those unlawfully injured by targeted killing operations or their heirs that overrides the state secrets and official immunity doctrine and replaces them with carefully considered procedures for balancing the secrecy concerns.
Solvency

The plan overcomes judicial deference and the government’s ability to assert state secret privileges.
Vladeck 13 Steve Vladeck 02/10/13 (Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security law, and international criminal law. “Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might...”, LawFare, from a conference hosted by Columbia Law School on targeted killings.)

At first blush, it may seem like many of these issues would be equally
AND
not most–of these cases, these legal issues would be overcome.
Lawsuits are a visible platform advocates can use to generate media attention and public conversations. The conversations that result from the aff spillover to broader conversations about constitutional concerns and human rights issues.
Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law “The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests” May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

This chapter suggests the judiciary may play an important role in the debate over the
AND
Even the threat of such a judicial role may influence executive branch behavior.
Courts become rallying points to debate specific applications of broader issues.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Learned Hand's assertion that as long as "liberty lies in the hearts of men
AND
can and often do enforce constitutional rights where the political branches would not.

Lawyers will use the media to spread the stories of the victims.
Margulies 9 Peter, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law “The Detainees' Dilemma: The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror” Buffalo Law Review 57 Buffalo L. Rev. 347 April, lexis

 *368  3. Media Relations and Stories of Innocence and Abuse.
AND
at establishing that Yoo exceeded the role constraints that bind American lawyers. n82

Storytelling is critical to reverse the othering of drone victims and make them more than just a statistic.
Figueroa 13 Alyssa Figueroa is an associate editor at AlterNet “10 Ways You Can Join the Fight Against Drone Warfare” October 28 http://www.alternet.org/activism/10-ways-you-can-join-fight-against-drone-warfare

8. Bring drone victims alive through stories. Too often a drone victim’s life
AND
, and then plan a time to come together and share their stories.

The poorly informed public continues to prop up Obama’s drone policy. Current government justifications enable it to discount alternate media narratives and cast a fog over public debate about drones.
Naiman 11/15 Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Mr. Naiman edits the Just Foreign Policy daily news summary and writes on U.S. foreign policy at Huffington Post. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. “WikiLeaks and the Drone Strike Transparency Bill” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-and-the-drone-s_b_4282595.html

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently took an important step by passing an intelligence authorization which
AND
not narrowly targeted on people who are trying to attack the United States.

Mobilizing civil society organizations is the most effective way to restrain executive power.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

The force of ordinary electoral politics also cannot account for the shift in U.
AND
law will have substantial deterrent effect, with or without actual court decisions.

Damages suits spillover– officials will try to demonstrate that they’re looking at other options.
Margulies 10 Peter, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Judging Myopia in Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, and the Rule of Law, 96 IOWA L. REV. 195
A carefully crafted damages remedy restrains official myopia and thereby curbs this counterproductive cycle.
AND
policy that Justice Kennedy identified in Boumediene as a central threat to constitutionalism.

Endless War

Current debate about drones focuses only on the number of casualties but ignores the context in which drone strikes take place- the act of drone strikes themselves cause more than just civilian casualties, they inflict psychological harm, spur revenge killings, and increase recruitment for terrorist organizations. A concern for those affected by drones is a necessary pre-requisite for ending the drone war.
Luban 12 Daniel Luban is a doctoral student in political science at the University of Chicago. He was formerly a correspondent for the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service. “An Important New Study of the Drone War” Sept 26 http://www.lobelog.com/an-important-new-study-of-the-drone-war/
As the report makes clear, however, the civilian death toll is only the
AND
benefits of the drone war seem likely to ensure that it will continue.
Even if casualties are declining, we need to remain vigilant- when we see casualties as statistics or just a side effect of war, we lose restraint and our moral bearing to the world.
Sullivan 13 Andrew Sullivan he won a Harkness Fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and earned a Masters degree in Public Administration, he was the editor of The New Republic, currently founding editor at The Dish “The Damage Done By Drones, Ctd “ Oct 23 http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/23/the-damage-done-by-drones-ctd/
I agree. Unintended collateral civilian casualties are not war crimes, and never have been. But the moral equation shifts, it seems to me, when the belligerent stops truly seeing these casualties as morally deeply troubling. This is particularly true when it comes to the anti-septic feel of drone warfare, where human beings can be seen simply as distant statistics. There comes a point at which indifference to civilian casualties veers toward a war crime. That was my problem with the Israelis’ pulverization of Gaza in 2009. They did not seem particularly agonized by it at all, despite the huge imbalance of fatalities on each side of that conflict. With that kind of technological power, restraint is even more essential if we are not to lose our soul. The way in which the Obama administration began to scale down drone warfare in the growing evidence of such casualties suggests to me a mindset attempting to avoid the worst aspects of such a war – not surrendering to it. But it’s a blurry line, and we need to remain extremely vigilant about it for moral and strategic reasons. Multiple civilian deaths do not, after all, help the case against al Qaeda in Pakistan.
*When we see solutions only in terms of war it becomes to easy for the military industrial complex to perpetuate cycles of violence.
Lawrence 9 Grant, “Military Industrial "War" Consciousness Responsible for Economic and Social Collapse,” OEN—OpEdNews, March 27
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama called Afghanistan ''the war we must win.
AND
will be forced to live the life our present war consciousness is creating.

We need a sustained public debate challenging the validity of legal arrangements to question the broader assumptions about security decisions and expertise.
Rana 12 Aziz Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School; A.B., Harvard College; J.D., Yale Law School; PhD., Harvard University. Connecticut Law Review July, 2012 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1417 COMMENTARY: NATIONAL SECURITY: LEAD ARTICLE: Who Decides on Security?, lexis

If the objective sociological claims at the center of the modern security concept are themselves profoundly contested, what does this mean for reform efforts that seek to recalibrate the relationship between liberty and security? Above all, it indicates that the central problem with the procedural solutions offered by constitutional scholars-emphasizing new statutory frameworks or greater judicial assertiveness-is that they mistake a question of politics for one of law. In other words, such scholars ignore the extent to which governing practices are the product of background political judgments about threat, democratic knowledge, professional expertise, and the necessity for insulated decision-making. To the extent that Americans are convinced that they face continuous danger from hidden and potentially limitless assailants-danger too complex for the average citizen to comprehend independently-it is inevitable that institutions (regardless of legal reform initiatives) will operate to centralize power in those hands presumed to enjoy military and security expertise. Thus, any systematic effort to challenge the current framing of the relationship between security and liberty must begin by challenging the underlying assumptions about knowledge and security upon which legal and political arrangements rest. Without a sustained and public debate about the validity of security expertise, its supporting institutions, and the broader legitimacy of secret information, there can be no substantive shift in our constitutional politics. The problem at present, however, is that it remains unclear which popular base exists in society to raise these questions. Unless such a base fully emerges, we can expect our prevailing security arrangements to become ever more entrenched.

Impact Framing
You should actively privilege probability in your decision calculus
The likelihood of a scenario should be the combination of the warrants debaters make, the probability their authors assign to a given scenario, and the defense from the other team.
Probability of the impact shouldn’t be evaluated in isolation- statistical analysis tells us that to calculate the final probability of a scenario, the individual probabilities of each internal link should be multiplied together. Each internal link makes the scenario less and less likely.
Any number of unlikely scenarios is conceivable, but that does not mean they enter the realm of probable. The probability of the disad or any other risk of attack will never be zero, but evaluating these scenarios becomes the equivalent of locking ourselves in our living room for fear of being struck by lightning.
Gartzke 13 Erik Gartzke is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego, and Professor of Government at the University of Essex. “The Myth of Cyberwar Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth” International Security, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Fall 2013)
Yet, it is far from clear that the internet is transformational in military terms
AND
is never zero, given that a potent defense or deterrent endangers the security
of others.
We should actively transition away from the card=truth currency model of debate- debaters find any number of unreasonable and improbable scenarios and assert that since they read a card that impact is 100 likely. Debates should more heavily privilege a burden of proof, not a burden of rejoinder.
Debate’s current race to hyperbole reduces our ability to discuss and compare actual impacts that aren’t hyperbole. As a critic you must be more skeptical of “risk of a link” logic and more willing to dismiss ridiculously improbable scenarios.
Odekirk 10 Scott, debate coach 8/6/10, Impact Hyperbole: A Dilemma of Contemporary Debate Practice, http://puttingthekindebate.com/2010/08/26/impact-hyperbole-a-dilemma-of-contemporary-debate-practice/
It seems as though debate is stuck in a loop of nuclear wars and no value to life. We have a difficult time of conceiving of a terminal impact that doesn’t end in some ultimate destruction. Without terminal impacts such as nuclear war or the root of all claims, we have a tough time comparing and weighing impacts. Our arguments for spill over connect even the most improbable of scenarios. Take for example our Africa war arguments. Given that Africa, as a continent, largely lack nuclear capabilities the chances of a conflict escalating in this area of the world are slim at best, but still debate returns to evidence written by The Rabid Tiger Project. In fact if you google “http:www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html”, you will find the great majority of the hits are debate links. This particular scenario is largely a debate creation and the scholarly world around it seems to have largely dismissed this single article as lacking credibility.
\Even in a debate context, this particular evidence is difficult to take seriously with a big debate on the line. Beyond the most terrible of impact evidence though, a world of equally terrifying scenario’s exist. According to the debate community, we face nuclear war because of any of the following: economic collapse in any number of countries across the globe, a lack of US leadership, use of US hard power (pre-emption, imperialist expansion, etc), India-Pakistan conflict, Middle East escalation, Iran nuclearization, capitalism, the lack of capitalism, patriarchy, racism, nuclear terrorism, US response to a terrorist attack, Taiwan independence, Chinese collapse, Russian aggression, Russian collapse, or accidental launch of nuclear weapons. That’s a short list and I am certain it doesn’t contain all the ways a nuclear war could break out as described in debate scenarios. If one listened closely to the debate community, a sense of inevitable doom would most certainly replace any belief in a long life. As much as it would seem I am poking fun at the policy debate community, kritik debaters caught in the same loop. External impacts to our criticisms are often extinction claims. A great number of K’s end in root of all claims or no value to life claims. In a very similar pattern, our kritiky impacts reflect the same sense of terminal destruction we find in the policy community we often subject to kritik. Possibly living under the sword of Damocles has had more impact on our psyche than Americans give it credit. Possibly living in the information age has resulted in the ability to read any old nut as great impact evidence without the effective critical thinking skills to discern who or what qualifies as credible. Possibly debate as a community lacks a language by which to communicate the dangers of racism, sexism, homophobia, economic justice, poor foreign relations, or terrorism. Is this tumble into impact hyperbole a problem? Well, it definitely does not reflect the sort of care a scholar takes in his/her work. It lacks the humility of limited claims backed only with probable warrants. Although there are some scenarios which could escalate into extinction or which do explain important pre-conditions for violence or meaningful living, these scenarios are much more limited than the debate community gives credence. In theory, the repetition of these hyperboles naturalize them or, at least, make them appear natural/normal. Our community convinces itself the impacts we discuss are credible threats. We are a population believing in an exaggerated reality – a hyper real if you will. Before we give ourselves the credit of knowing that our impacts are exaggerated, let us consider those of us who move on to work in think tanks or write law reviews who assess the threats of nuclear wars to the United States. In fact, this honor, think tank writer, is given out at the NDT every year. Perhaps a better question is, what is the value of our current impact debate? We don’t really help avoid nuclear wars or prevent violence by making every possible interaction into a discussion of the potential for either. If all of these scenarios result in gruesome ending for life on Earth, then the issues become very muddled. The result may be a sort of nihilism which in its conclusion is more Darwinian than Nietzsche. If we decide there is a impact hyperbole problem, what then is the alternative? Of course, the literature is our guide to a sensible form of impact debate, but we wouldn’t be in this predicament without literature. No debater asserts these impacts; they read cards. Cards = Truth Currency. A solution is a better internal link debate. How do the scenarios unfold? To examine the internals means examining all the many different ways the world would intervene in order to prevent the terminal impact from occurring. Debate judges can only work with what debaters give them, but we too must be willing to tell a team their impacts are overblown when this argument is part of the debate. Giving a debate ballot to the team who finds a 1 risk of extinction is a silly judging paradigm at best. At worst, it reflects a lack of critical thinking on the part of a debate critic. I am most definitely not saying critics should intervene and make impact arguments that are not in the debate, but giving more weight to impact defense is an important start to reign in our impact hyperbole.

Tournament: Shirley | Round: 2 | Opponent: Harvard Dimitrijevic-Taylor | Judge: Paul
There is a growing cacophony of voices bringing attention to the deaths of civilians by drone strikes- from the reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the UN special reports. But still, not enough Americans are listening. The Rehman family flew 7,000 miles to tell their story at a Congressional hearing and only 5 members of Congress showed up. We need a mobilized community to restrain future use of drones.
Madea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK in 2013 Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. “Drone Victims Come Out of the Shadows” Nov 5 http://fpif.org/drone-victims-come-shadows/?utm_source=feedburnerandutm_medium=feedandutm_campaign=Feed3A+FPIF+28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+28All+News2929
At each of the over 200 cities I’ve traveled to this past year with my
AND
victims. Check here to register for the summit or watch the livestream.

The current rhetoric about drone use focuses on the number of civilian versus militant deaths, but this distinction ignores the question of whether or not the drones were legal in the first place and allows the government to assert legal justifications to continue drone use.
Rona 13 Gabor, International Legal Director of Human Rights First, Gabor Rona advises Human Rights First programs on questions of international law, http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/10/gabor-rona-of-human-rights-first-responds/
But I wish Ritika had put a bit more underlying law into her analysis,
AND
operations, we will continue to undercount the number of people illegally killed.

Six months after Obama’s promise of transparency, there is still too much we don’t know about the drone program. Additional oversight is insufficient to lead to public disclosure or accountability.
Currier 11/5 Cora Currier was previously on the editorial staff of the New Yorker. “6 Months After Obama Promised to Divulge More on Drones, Here’s What We Still Don’t Know” Nov 5 http://www.propublica.org/article/6-months-after-obama-promised-to-divulge-more-on-drones-heres-what-we-still
Nearly six months ago, President Obama promised more transparency and tighter policies around targeted
AND
has also so far fought off disclosure of legal memos underpinning targeted killings.
Plan
The United States Congress should create a statutory cause of action for damages for those unlawfully injured by targeted killing operations or their heirs that overrides the state secrets and official immunity doctrine and replaces them with carefully considered procedures for balancing the secrecy concerns.
Solvency

The plan overcomes judicial deference and the government’s ability to assert state secret privileges.
Vladeck 13 Steve Vladeck 02/10/13 (Professor of Law and the Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law. His teaching and research focus on federal jurisdiction, constitutional law, national security law, and international criminal law. “Why a “Drone Court” Won’t Work–But (Nominal) Damages Might...”, LawFare, from a conference hosted by Columbia Law School on targeted killings.)

At first blush, it may seem like many of these issues would be equally
AND
not most–of these cases, these legal issues would be overcome.
Lawsuits are a visible platform advocates can use to generate media attention and public conversations. The conversations that result from the aff spillover to broader conversations about constitutional concerns and human rights issues.
Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law “The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests” May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

This chapter suggests the judiciary may play an important role in the debate over the
AND
Even the threat of such a judicial role may influence executive branch behavior.
Courts become rallying points to debate specific applications of broader issues.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Learned Hand's assertion that as long as "liberty lies in the hearts of men
AND
can and often do enforce constitutional rights where the political branches would not.

Lawyers will use the media to spread the stories of the victims.
Margulies 9 Peter, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University School of Law “The Detainees' Dilemma: The Virtues and Vices of Advocacy Strategies in the War on Terror” Buffalo Law Review 57 Buffalo L. Rev. 347 April, lexis

 *368  3. Media Relations and Stories of Innocence and Abuse.
AND
at establishing that Yoo exceeded the role constraints that bind American lawyers. n82

Storytelling is critical to reverse the othering of drone victims and make them more than just a statistic.
Figueroa 13 Alyssa Figueroa is an associate editor at AlterNet “10 Ways You Can Join the Fight Against Drone Warfare” October 28 http://www.alternet.org/activism/10-ways-you-can-join-fight-against-drone-warfare

8. Bring drone victims alive through stories. Too often a drone victim’s life
AND
, and then plan a time to come together and share their stories.

The poorly informed public continues to prop up Obama’s drone policy. Current government justifications enable it to discount alternate media narratives and cast a fog over public debate about drones.
Naiman 11/15 Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Mr. Naiman edits the Just Foreign Policy daily news summary and writes on U.S. foreign policy at Huffington Post. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. “WikiLeaks and the Drone Strike Transparency Bill” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-and-the-drone-s_b_4282595.html

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently took an important step by passing an intelligence authorization which
AND
not narrowly targeted on people who are trying to attack the United States.

Mobilizing civil society organizations is the most effective way to restrain executive power.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

The force of ordinary electoral politics also cannot account for the shift in U.
AND
law will have substantial deterrent effect, with or without actual court decisions.

Damages suits spillover– officials will try to demonstrate that they’re looking at other options.
Margulies 10 Peter, Professor of Law, Roger Williams University. Judging Myopia in Hindsight: Bivens Actions, National Security Decisions, and the Rule of Law, 96 IOWA L. REV. 195
A carefully crafted damages remedy restrains official myopia and thereby curbs this counterproductive cycle.
AND
policy that Justice Kennedy identified in Boumediene as a central threat to constitutionalism.

Endless War

Current debate about drones focuses only on the number of casualties but ignores the context in which drone strikes take place- the act of drone strikes themselves cause more than just civilian casualties, they inflict psychological harm, spur revenge killings, and increase recruitment for terrorist organizations. A concern for those affected by drones is a necessary pre-requisite for ending the drone war.
Luban 12 Daniel Luban is a doctoral student in political science at the University of Chicago. He was formerly a correspondent for the Washington bureau of Inter Press Service. “An Important New Study of the Drone War” Sept 26 http://www.lobelog.com/an-important-new-study-of-the-drone-war/
As the report makes clear, however, the civilian death toll is only the
AND
benefits of the drone war seem likely to ensure that it will continue.
Even if casualties are declining, we need to remain vigilant- when we see casualties as statistics or just a side effect of war, we lose restraint and our moral bearing to the world.
Sullivan 13 Andrew Sullivan he won a Harkness Fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and earned a Masters degree in Public Administration, he was the editor of The New Republic, currently founding editor at The Dish “The Damage Done By Drones, Ctd “ Oct 23 http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/23/the-damage-done-by-drones-ctd/
I agree. Unintended collateral civilian casualties are not war crimes, and never have been. But the moral equation shifts, it seems to me, when the belligerent stops truly seeing these casualties as morally deeply troubling. This is particularly true when it comes to the anti-septic feel of drone warfare, where human beings can be seen simply as distant statistics. There comes a point at which indifference to civilian casualties veers toward a war crime. That was my problem with the Israelis’ pulverization of Gaza in 2009. They did not seem particularly agonized by it at all, despite the huge imbalance of fatalities on each side of that conflict. With that kind of technological power, restraint is even more essential if we are not to lose our soul. The way in which the Obama administration began to scale down drone warfare in the growing evidence of such casualties suggests to me a mindset attempting to avoid the worst aspects of such a war – not surrendering to it. But it’s a blurry line, and we need to remain extremely vigilant about it for moral and strategic reasons. Multiple civilian deaths do not, after all, help the case against al Qaeda in Pakistan.
*When we see solutions only in terms of war it becomes to easy for the military industrial complex to perpetuate cycles of violence.
Lawrence 9 Grant, “Military Industrial "War" Consciousness Responsible for Economic and Social Collapse,” OEN—OpEdNews, March 27
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama called Afghanistan ''the war we must win.
AND
will be forced to live the life our present war consciousness is creating.

We need a sustained public debate challenging the validity of legal arrangements to question the broader assumptions about security decisions and expertise.
Rana 12 Aziz Assistant Professor of Law, Cornell University Law School; A.B., Harvard College; J.D., Yale Law School; PhD., Harvard University. Connecticut Law Review July, 2012 44 Conn. L. Rev. 1417 COMMENTARY: NATIONAL SECURITY: LEAD ARTICLE: Who Decides on Security?, lexis

If the objective sociological claims at the center of the modern security concept are themselves profoundly contested, what does this mean for reform efforts that seek to recalibrate the relationship between liberty and security? Above all, it indicates that the central problem with the procedural solutions offered by constitutional scholars-emphasizing new statutory frameworks or greater judicial assertiveness-is that they mistake a question of politics for one of law. In other words, such scholars ignore the extent to which governing practices are the product of background political judgments about threat, democratic knowledge, professional expertise, and the necessity for insulated decision-making. To the extent that Americans are convinced that they face continuous danger from hidden and potentially limitless assailants-danger too complex for the average citizen to comprehend independently-it is inevitable that institutions (regardless of legal reform initiatives) will operate to centralize power in those hands presumed to enjoy military and security expertise. Thus, any systematic effort to challenge the current framing of the relationship between security and liberty must begin by challenging the underlying assumptions about knowledge and security upon which legal and political arrangements rest. Without a sustained and public debate about the validity of security expertise, its supporting institutions, and the broader legitimacy of secret information, there can be no substantive shift in our constitutional politics. The problem at present, however, is that it remains unclear which popular base exists in society to raise these questions. Unless such a base fully emerges, we can expect our prevailing security arrangements to become ever more entrenched.

Impact Framing
You should actively privilege probability in your decision calculus
The likelihood of a scenario should be the combination of the warrants debaters make, the probability their authors assign to a given scenario, and the defense from the other team.
Probability of the impact shouldn’t be evaluated in isolation- statistical analysis tells us that to calculate the final probability of a scenario, the individual probabilities of each internal link should be multiplied together. Each internal link makes the scenario less and less likely.
Any number of unlikely scenarios is conceivable, but that does not mean they enter the realm of probable. The probability of the disad or any other risk of attack will never be zero, but evaluating these scenarios becomes the equivalent of locking ourselves in our living room for fear of being struck by lightning.
Gartzke 13 Erik Gartzke is Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of California, San Diego, and Professor of Government at the University of Essex. “The Myth of Cyberwar Bringing War in Cyberspace Back Down to Earth” International Security, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Fall 2013)
Yet, it is far from clear that the internet is transformational in military terms
AND
is never zero, given that a potent defense or deterrent endangers the security
of others.
We should actively transition away from the card=truth currency model of debate- debaters find any number of unreasonable and improbable scenarios and assert that since they read a card that impact is 100 likely. Debates should more heavily privilege a burden of proof, not a burden of rejoinder.
Debate’s current race to hyperbole reduces our ability to discuss and compare actual impacts that aren’t hyperbole. As a critic you must be more skeptical of “risk of a link” logic and more willing to dismiss ridiculously improbable scenarios.
Odekirk 10 Scott, debate coach 8/6/10, Impact Hyperbole: A Dilemma of Contemporary Debate Practice, http://puttingthekindebate.com/2010/08/26/impact-hyperbole-a-dilemma-of-contemporary-debate-practice/
It seems as though debate is stuck in a loop of nuclear wars and no value to life. We have a difficult time of conceiving of a terminal impact that doesn’t end in some ultimate destruction. Without terminal impacts such as nuclear war or the root of all claims, we have a tough time comparing and weighing impacts. Our arguments for spill over connect even the most improbable of scenarios. Take for example our Africa war arguments. Given that Africa, as a continent, largely lack nuclear capabilities the chances of a conflict escalating in this area of the world are slim at best, but still debate returns to evidence written by The Rabid Tiger Project. In fact if you google “http:www.rabidtigers.com/rtn/newsletterv2n9.html”, you will find the great majority of the hits are debate links. This particular scenario is largely a debate creation and the scholarly world around it seems to have largely dismissed this single article as lacking credibility.
\Even in a debate context, this particular evidence is difficult to take seriously with a big debate on the line. Beyond the most terrible of impact evidence though, a world of equally terrifying scenario’s exist. According to the debate community, we face nuclear war because of any of the following: economic collapse in any number of countries across the globe, a lack of US leadership, use of US hard power (pre-emption, imperialist expansion, etc), India-Pakistan conflict, Middle East escalation, Iran nuclearization, capitalism, the lack of capitalism, patriarchy, racism, nuclear terrorism, US response to a terrorist attack, Taiwan independence, Chinese collapse, Russian aggression, Russian collapse, or accidental launch of nuclear weapons. That’s a short list and I am certain it doesn’t contain all the ways a nuclear war could break out as described in debate scenarios. If one listened closely to the debate community, a sense of inevitable doom would most certainly replace any belief in a long life. As much as it would seem I am poking fun at the policy debate community, kritik debaters caught in the same loop. External impacts to our criticisms are often extinction claims. A great number of K’s end in root of all claims or no value to life claims. In a very similar pattern, our kritiky impacts reflect the same sense of terminal destruction we find in the policy community we often subject to kritik. Possibly living under the sword of Damocles has had more impact on our psyche than Americans give it credit. Possibly living in the information age has resulted in the ability to read any old nut as great impact evidence without the effective critical thinking skills to discern who or what qualifies as credible. Possibly debate as a community lacks a language by which to communicate the dangers of racism, sexism, homophobia, economic justice, poor foreign relations, or terrorism. Is this tumble into impact hyperbole a problem? Well, it definitely does not reflect the sort of care a scholar takes in his/her work. It lacks the humility of limited claims backed only with probable warrants. Although there are some scenarios which could escalate into extinction or which do explain important pre-conditions for violence or meaningful living, these scenarios are much more limited than the debate community gives credence. In theory, the repetition of these hyperboles naturalize them or, at least, make them appear natural/normal. Our community convinces itself the impacts we discuss are credible threats. We are a population believing in an exaggerated reality – a hyper real if you will. Before we give ourselves the credit of knowing that our impacts are exaggerated, let us consider those of us who move on to work in think tanks or write law reviews who assess the threats of nuclear wars to the United States. In fact, this honor, think tank writer, is given out at the NDT every year. Perhaps a better question is, what is the value of our current impact debate? We don’t really help avoid nuclear wars or prevent violence by making every possible interaction into a discussion of the potential for either. If all of these scenarios result in gruesome ending for life on Earth, then the issues become very muddled. The result may be a sort of nihilism which in its conclusion is more Darwinian than Nietzsche. If we decide there is a impact hyperbole problem, what then is the alternative? Of course, the literature is our guide to a sensible form of impact debate, but we wouldn’t be in this predicament without literature. No debater asserts these impacts; they read cards. Cards = Truth Currency. A solution is a better internal link debate. How do the scenarios unfold? To examine the internals means examining all the many different ways the world would intervene in order to prevent the terminal impact from occurring. Debate judges can only work with what debaters give them, but we too must be willing to tell a team their impacts are overblown when this argument is part of the debate. Giving a debate ballot to the team who finds a 1 risk of extinction is a silly judging paradigm at best. At worst, it reflects a lack of critical thinking on the part of a debate critic. I am most definitely not saying critics should intervene and make impact arguments that are not in the debate, but giving more weight to impact defense is an important start to reign in our impact hyperbole.

Tournament: D114 | Round: 4 | Opponent: Los Rios Priyadarshini-Robinson | Judge: Dunn
Our 1AC begins with a re-telling of the Rehman family’s story, as told by Rania Khalek after she spent time with the family in November

Thus Clara and I demand that the United States federal government should stand trial for its targeted killings. 

Clara and I may be American citizens living thousands of miles from Yemen, but our demand demonstrates solidarity with victims of drone strikes. Obama and his lawyers continue to justify the targeted killing of hundreds in the name of counterterrorism. Saying nothing in the face of these murders is a passive endorsement of the status quo. We may not be able to stop all executive abuses, but we want them to know that they need to keep our names out of their justification when they do it. Drone victims want to know Americans are listening- they want us to share their stories and demand an end to targeted killing.
Mohammed Al Qawli, whose brother was killed in a drone strike, wrote in December Mohammed Al Qawli is an educational consultant at the Ministry of Education in Sanaa, Yemen and the former director of the Ministry of Education in Khawlan province. His brother, Ali Al Qawli, was killed in a drone strike in January 2013. Dec 5 2013 “The US killed my brother with a drone. I want to know why” http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/grieving-yemena-sinnocentdead.html
I have been waiting for almost a year now for
 of the principles they purport to uphold.

Lawsuits are a visible platform advocates can use to generate media attention and public conversations. The conversations that result from the aff spillover to broader conversations about constitutional concerns and human rights issues.
Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law “The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests” May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

This chapter suggests the judiciary may play
role may influence executive branch behavior

Mobilizing civil society organizations is the most effective way to restrain executive power.
David Cole explains David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis
The force of ordinary electoral politics also cannot account
, with or without actual court decisions.

Tort litigation succeeds where traditional rights fail. Tort strategies provide forums for a unique and critical form of speaking ‘truth’ to biopower through the expression of individual bodily experience. Individuals are enabled to speak their own experience, disrupting dominant narratives of the body.
Anne Bloom writes Anne, Professor of Law, the University of the Pacific/McGeorge School of Law. Southwestern Law Review, 41 Sw. L. Rev. 241
"Speaking "Truth' to Biopower" is a pragmatic strategy
some respect and "collective responsibility" is owed

The aff is key to empathy- Exposing ourselves to different modes of understanding is critical to cultivating sympathy for different ways of life
Kathie Jenni explains Kathie, Pf Philosophy at Redlands, Social Theory and Practice, July v27 i3 p437
The claim on behalf of academics' value to the world at large is tha
seems essential for growth in moral judgment.(

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 2 | Opponent: Houston Rajwani-Lanning | Judge: Corrigan, Dunn, Gordon

There is a growing chorus of voices bringing attention to the deaths of civilians by drone strikes- from the reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the UN special reports. But still, not enough Americans are paying attention. The Rehman family flew 7,000 miles to tell their story at a Congressional hearing and only 5 members of Congress showed up. We need a mobilized community to restrain future use of drones.

Madea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK in 2013 Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. "Drone Victims Come Out of the Shadows" Nov 5 http://fpif.org/drone-victims-come-shadows/?utm_source=feedburner26utm_medium=feed26utm_campaign=Feed3A+FPIF+28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+28All+News2929
At each of the over 200 cities I’ve traveled to this past year with my
AND
victims. Check here to register for the summit or watch the livestream.

Obama never follows through with statements about drones, and there’s still a lot we don’t know.

Byrd 1/15 Lauren, Salon, "Obama’s staggering drone hypocrisy" http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/the_hypocrisy_of_drones_what_the_obama_administration_says_vs_what_happens_partner/
In 2013, the discussion about the Obama administration’s use of drones as weapons of
AND
Congress. His family members are just a few of the innocent victims.

Plan

The United States Congress should create a statutory cause of action for damages for those unlawfully injured by targeted killing operations or their heirs that overrides the state secrets and official immunity doctrine and replaces them with carefully considered procedures for balancing the secrecy concerns.

Solvency

The plan creates a deterrent effect and overcomes judicial deference and the government’s ability to assert state secret privileges.

Stephen I. Vladeck 13, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law, senior editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy, Supreme Court Fellow at the Constitution Project, and fellow at the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, JD from Yale Law School, Feb 27 2013, "DRONES AND THE WAR ON TERROR: WHEN CAN THE U.S.TARGET ALLEGED AMERICAN TERRORISTS OVERSEAS?" Hearing Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Vladeck-02272013.pdf
At first blush, it may seem like many of these issues would be equally
AND
laws of the United States, what does the government have to hide?

Lawsuits are a visible platform advocates can use to generate media attention and public conversations. The conversations that result from the aff spillover to broader conversations about constitutional concerns and human rights issues.

Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law "The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests" May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

This chapter suggests the judiciary may play an important role in the debate over the
AND
Even the threat of such a judicial role may influence executive branch behavior.

Courts become rallying points to debate specific applications of broader issues.

Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Learned Hand’s assertion that as long as "liberty lies in the hearts of men
AND
can and often do enforce constitutional rights where the political branches would not.

The poorly informed public continues to prop up Obama’s drone policy. Current government justifications enable it to discount alternate media narratives and cast a fog over public debate about drones.

Naiman 13 Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Mr. Naiman edits the Just Foreign Policy daily news summary and writes on U.S. foreign policy at Huffington Post. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen’s Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. "WikiLeaks and the Drone Strike Transparency Bill" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-and-the-drone-s_b_4282595.html

The Senate Intelligence Committee recently took an important step by passing an intelligence authorization which
AND
not narrowly targeted on people who are trying to attack the United States.

Mobilizing civil society organizations is the most effective way to restrain executive power.

Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

The force of ordinary electoral politics also cannot account for the shift in U.
AND
law will have substantial deterrent effect, with or without actual court decisions.

"Targeted" Killing

Drone strikes cause thousands of civilian deaths and massive disruptions of daily life.

Stanford Human Rights Clinic 12 "Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan" Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (IHRCRC) and Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law September http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf
First, while civilian casualties are rarely acknowledged by the US government, there is
AND
loved ones or their homes in drone strikes now struggle to support themselves.

Despite the lies from defense officials, the images from drones are too pixelated to be precise- the public needs to know civilian casualties are commonplace.

Linebaugh 13 Heather Linebaugh "I worked on the US drone program. The public should know what really goes on" Dec 29 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/dec/29/drones-us-military/print
Whenever I read comments by politicians defending the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Predator and Reaper program
AND
affected by observing this combat because they are never directly in danger physically.

Even if casualties are declining, we need to remain vigilant- when we see casualties as statistics or just a side effect of war, we lose restraint and our moral bearing to the world.

Sullivan 13 Andrew Sullivan he won a Harkness Fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, and earned a Masters degree in Public Administration, he was the editor of The New Republic, currently founding editor at The Dish "The Damage Done By Drones, Ctd " Oct 23 http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/10/23/the-damage-done-by-drones-ctd/
I agree. Unintended collateral civilian casualties are not war crimes, and never have
AND
not, after all, help the case against al Qaeda in Pakistan.

Dependence on drones perpetuates a binary way of thinking where we don’t consider other options. This has locked us into an endless war.

Bacevich 12 Andrew Bacevich, professor of history and international relations at Boston University, Interview wil Bill Moyers, March 23 http://billmoyers.com/wp-content/themes/billmoyers/transcript-print.php?post=5190
Again, one would refer to Afghan history here, that this is simply not
AND
are indications that we can engage or have some hope in positive change.

Smarter publics are necessary to check government overreaching by exposing the illusions that keep certain institutions in power.

Williams 8 Daniel R, Associate Professor of Law, Northeastern University School of Law.Penn State Law Review, Summer, 113 Penn St. L. Rev. 55
The classic Frankfurt School diagnosis of American culture is grim and pessimistic. Jurgen Habermas
AND
Habermas regard "the public sphere as the definitive institution of democracy." 164 

When we find solutions only in terms of war it becomes to easy for the military industrial complex to perpetuate cycles of violence.

Lawrence 9 Grant, "Military Industrial "War" Consciousness Responsible for Economic and Social Collapse," OEN—OpEdNews, March 27
As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama called Afghanistan ’’the war we must win.
AND
will be forced to live the life our present war consciousness is creating.

Impact Framing

You should actively privilege probability in your decision calculus

The likelihood of a scenario should be the combination of the warrants debaters make, the probability their authors assign to a given scenario, and the defense from the other team.

Probability of the impact shouldn’t be evaluated in isolation- statistical analysis tells us that to calculate the final probability of a scenario, the individual probabilities of each internal link should be multiplied together. Each internal link makes the scenario less and less likely.

We should actively transition away from the card

truth currency model of debate- debaters find any number of unreasonable and improbable scenarios and assert that since they read a card that impact is 100 likely. Debates should more heavily privilege a burden of proof, not a burden of rejoinder. ====

Debate’s current race to hyperbole reduces our ability to discuss and compare actual impacts that aren’t hyperbole. As a critic you must be more skeptical of "risk of a link" logic and more willing to dismiss ridiculously improbable scenarios.

Odekirk 10 Scott, debate coach 8/6/10, Impact Hyperbole: A Dilemma of Contemporary Debate Practice, http://puttingthekindebate.com/2010/08/26/impact-hyperbole-a-dilemma-of-contemporary-debate-practice/
It seems as though debate is stuck in a loop of nuclear
AND
impact defense is an important start to reign in our impact hyperbole.

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 6 | Opponent: Texas Stransky-Tuchman | Judge: Murillo
They have to prove their alt is feasible- even ethical criticism needs to couch its challenges in viable alternatives or else they will be manipulated by those that frame existing politics, ensuring their alt fails. 

Demenchonok 9, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, (Edward, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68.1 (Jan): p9)

However, the further development of an ethical approach faces challenges that need to taken
AND
in a way that will, or even should, be taken seriously.
Unifying theories distract time and energy from a democratic renaissance – they divide ranks, telling people that their current forms of resistance are a waste of time.

RUDD 5 * JEFFREY, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Montana; University of Wisconsin-Madison, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Spring, 29 Wm. and Mary Envtl. L. and Pol'y Rev. 551

Society should give up the unproductive pursuit of unifying theories purporting to explain the underlying
AND
to the defects of democracy is not denial of the democratic idea." n30
SPECIES-ISM IS NOT THE CAUSE of all oppression – WE MUST STRIVE TO ELIMINATE HUMAN DOMINATION FIRST- the aff turns the K

FOTOPOULOS, a political philosopher and economist who founded the inclusive democracy movement, Senior Lecturer in Economics at the Polytechnic of North London and SARGIS, has taught secondary school biology in the inner city for twenty-four years. He is a political activist and union leader, 06  
(Takis and John, The International Journal of INCLUSIVE DEMOCRACY, vol.2, no.3, June)

The reason why (for those who have chosen autonomy/democracy) human interests
AND
species since democracy is inconceivable if it includes the “representative” element.

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 3 | Opponent: Gonzaga Bauer-Johnson | Judge: Gliniecki
Structural factors make Democratic transition in China inevitable – a quick transition is key to avoid bottom-up revolution
Cheng Li 2012 (Fellow, Brookings Institution, “The End of the CCP’s Resilient Authoritarianism? A Tripartite Assessment of Shifting Power in China,” The China Quarterly, 211, September 2012, pp. 595–623)
From a broader perspective, although these three shifts of power are the cause of
AND
be under, rather than above, the constitution should be made sooner.
THE STATE WILL PACIFY DISSENT WITH NEW SUBSIDIES

Walker, Department of History, Temple University, 08    (Kathy L., J. of Agrarian Change, vol. 8 Nos 2 and 3) 

In response, the central government has adopted, especially in recent years, a
AND

and#39;Rural Taxand#39; 2003; and#39;Threat of Ruraland#39; 2002; and#39;Wen Jiabaoand#39; 2003).

Congressional restraint on Syria takes out the DA
Waxman, Professor Law at Columbia, 9-3-’13 (Matthew, “Constitutional Power to Threaten War: Three Points on Syria”  http://www.lawfareblog.com/2013/09/constitutional-power-to-threaten-war-three-points-on-syria/)
First, a point about constraints on the President:  Whatever one thinks about the
AND
and allies, alike – observing and reacting to those politics, too.

No risk of CCP collapse
Wu 9-3 2010 (Sofia-, Central News Agency – Taiwan: Apple Daily, “Difficult for China to turn to democracy”, Lexis)
Several factors, however, might prevent Chinaand#39;s communist regime from an abrupt downfall like
AND
characteristicsand#34; and considers that the legitimacy of communist rule is beyond question.
Corruption makes Chinese political instability inevitable
Pei 7 (Minxin, senior associate @ the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, October, pg. http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/pb55_pei_china_corruption_final.pdf)
Combating corruption is perhaps one of the toughest tasks ahead because it requires politically difficult
AND
. The failure to contain official corruption will inevitably endanger China’s economic development.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cal WS | Judge: Paul Johnson
Individual decisions don’t affect capital.
Gibson et al., ‘3
James (Professor in Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis); Gregory Caldeira (Professor in Political Science at Ohio State University); and Lester Spence (Professor in Political Science at Washington University in St. Louis), “Measuring Attitudes Towards the U.S. Supreme Court”, American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, No. 2, April 2003
Perhaps more important is the rather limited relationship between performance evaluations and loyalty to the
AND
it is so weakly related to actions the Court takes at the moment.
Justices rule based on ideology and personal considerations.
Pacelle, Prof PoliSci Georgia Southern, 2002
Richard L. Pacelle, Jr., Prof of Poli Sci @ Georgia Southern University, The Role of the Supreme Court in American Politics: The Least Dangerous Branch? 2002 p 140-1
Every decision that a Supreme Court justice makes is inherently political. The Court hears
AND
are reflected in the differences between finding the law and making the law.
Overruling doesn’t cost capital – overruling bad decisions boosts capital.
Linton, assoc general counsel Americans United for Life, 1993
Paul Benjamin Linton, Associate General Counsel for Litigation, Americans United for Life, 1993, “PLANNED PARENTHOOD V. CASEY: THE FLIGHT FROM REASON IN THE SUPREME COURT” 13 St. Louis U. Pub. L. Rev. 15
The Court describes this first circumstance as "hypothetical." n272 The distinct impression left
AND
if otherwise appropriate, could not reasonably be expected to damage that credibility.
Court decisions do not burn capital – strong presumption that decisions should be accepted.
Fontana, associate professor of law at George Washington University Law School, ‘8
David, “The Supreme Court: Missing in Action”, Dissent, Vol. 55, No. 2, Spring 2008, RSR
Second, Court decisions do not necessarily¶ create the backlash that many on the
AND
the¶ Court issues controversial decisions such as¶ Bush v. Gore.

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cal WS | Judge: Paul Johnson
Tea Party will hold debt ceiling hostage inevitably – enough to trigger the impact
Jones, 9-13-’13 (Sarah, “Another Obama Success That Republicans Can’t Handle As Deficit Shrinks to 5 Year Low” Politics USA, http://www.politicususa.com/2013/09/13/republicans-threaten-raise-debt-ceiling-deficit-smallest-years.html)
Republicans are threatening not to raise the debt ceiling unless funding for Obamacare is delayed
AND
explain to their base and their funders that the ObamaCare fight is over.
Partisan fights ensure no agreement
Weisman, 9-12-’13 (Jonathan, “Boehner Seeking Democrats’ Help on Fiscal Talks” http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/13/us/politics/at-meeting-with-treasury-secretary-boehner-pressed-for-debt-ceiling-deal.html?pagewanted=all)
Much of the federal government will shut down as of Oct. 1 unless Congress
AND
,” Mr. Reid added. “I do feel sorry for him.”

Even if Obama has backed off of Syria, it sapped his pc for the domestic agenda
Morrissey, 9-12-’13 (Ed, “Tapper: Did Obama’s Syria fumble blow his political capital?” http://hotair.com/archives/2013/09/12/tapper-did-obamas-syria-fumble-blow-his-political-capital/)
The video here is instructive not because of the discussion that ensues, but because
AND
the quickest way to lame-duck status in second-term history.
Plan would be seen as a concession- Congress wants to stand up to Obama on TK- both sides of the aisle are calling for more transparency
Serwer 12 Adam Serwer is a former reporter at Mother Jones. Prior to working at Mother Jones, he was a staff writer at the American Prospect. Adam has written for the Washington Post, the Root, the Village Voice, and the New York Daily News. “Congress Wants to See Obama's "License to Kill"” July 31 2012 http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/congress-disclose-obama-targeted-killing-memos
Congress is finally standing up to President Barack Obama on targeted killing. Almost a
AND
targeted killing. Now Congress seems to be moving towards the ACLU's position.

Political capital is fabricated- you can’t predict momentum or uplanned events. There’s only a risk the plan is a win.
Hirsh, Chief Correspondent National Journal, 2-7-’13 (Michael, “There’s No Such Thing as Political Capital” National Journal, http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/there-s-no-such-thing-as-political-capital-20130207)
On Tuesday, in his State of the Union address, President Obama will do
AND
but to move. It’s your choice.¶ The future is wide open.

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 3 | Opponent: Gonzaga Bauer-Johnson | Judge: Gliniecki
1- We meet- by increasing the courts’ jurisdiction, the plan restricts the authority of the executive to circumvent questions of legality of targeted killings.
Chehab 11 Ahmad Georgetown University Law Center Spring, 2011 Wayne Law Review 57 Wayne L. Rev. 335 THE BUSH AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONSand#39; INVOCATION OF THE STATE SECRET PRIVILEGE IN NATIONAL SECURITY LITIGATION: A PROPOSAL FOR ROBUST JUDICIAL REVIEW, lexis

The invocation of the SSP has operated as a form of Executive-style jurisdiction
AND
, there seems little hope for effective congressional regulation of the SSP. n157

2- Counter-interp- Restrictions can take two forms: prior restraint and subsequent action
Emerson 55 Thomas Emerson, 1955 (Professor of Law at Yale University) and#34;The Doctrine of Prior Restraint,and#34; 20 Law and Contemp. Probs. 648, 648

In constitutional terms, the doctrine of prior restraint holds that the First Amendment forbids
AND
operation, and their effect upon the basic objectives of the First Amendment.
3- key to half the topic- Congress and the executive share war powers- judicial restrictions can only mean Congress giving the courts authority to rule after the fact. Judges can’t decide questions presidential authority, only use of the authority
4- most predictable- itand#39;s a legal definition outlining the ways the government may impose a restriction- these should be preferred on a legal topic because it grounds our research
5- The plan is a restriction
Calabresi 13 2/14/13 (Massimo, Writer for Time, http://swampland.time.com/2013/02/14/checking-obamas-assasination-power-a-drone-court-is-just-one-way/) 

The authority of the commander in chief to kill Americans who have joined an enemy
AND
a court in some ways, but that would be staffed by experts.”

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cal WS | Judge: Paul Johnson
The US drone program is responsible for killing countless innocent civilians
Kleidman, 2010
(Jamie L., New York Law School and New York District Attorney, The Constitutionality of the Predator Drone Program, http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/vioincl4anddiv=32andg_sent=1andcollection=journals , 359) 

The Predator Program has been alleged to be the most successful tool in fighting Al
AND
, who is in charge, or how many people have been killed.”

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cal WS | Judge: Paul Johnson
ETHICS must be FEASIBLE on a larger scale and Ethics are easily coopted

Demenchonok 9, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,
(Edward, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68.1 (Jan): p9)

However, the further development of an ethical approach faces challenges that need to taken
AND
in a way that will, or even should, be taken seriously.

Unifying theories distract time and energy from a democratic renaissance – they divide ranks, telling people that their current forms of resistance are a waste of time.

RUDD 5 * JEFFREY, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Montana; University of Wisconsin-Madison, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Spring, 29 Wm. and Mary Envtl. L. and Pol'y Rev. 551

Society should give up the unproductive pursuit of unifying theories purporting to explain the underlying
AND
to the defects of democracy is not denial of the democratic idea." n30

Tournament: UMKC | Round: 1 | Opponent: Cal WS | Judge: Paul Johnson
Only congress can regulate federal jurisdiction
Chehab 11 Ahmad Georgetown University Law Center Spring, 2011 Wayne Law Review 57 Wayne L. Rev. 335 THE BUSH AND OBAMA ADMINISTRATIONS' INVOCATION OF THE STATE SECRET PRIVILEGE IN NATIONAL SECURITY LITIGATION: A PROPOSAL FOR ROBUST JUDICIAL REVIEW, lexis

While national security litigation has been dominating the headlines, Congress has attempted to rein
AND
to restore the SSP to its proper role as an evidentiary privilege. n160

Without judicial review, future Presidents won’t follow checks on power

SAIDEL 13 NICHOLAS, Associate Director of the Institute for Strategic Threat Analysis and Response (ISTAR) at the University of Pennsylvania. CounterPunch, 1-25, http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/01/25/the-opacity-of-a-shadow-war/

As shadow wars are quickly becoming the prevailing approach, controversial issues about the targeted
AND
the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2013 (NDAA 2013).

CP links
1- Spends PC- Obama has to spend time crafting and defending his new drone strategy- if their PC and transparency args are true then it trades off
2- Pushback- CP will be spun as an increase in executive power over drone decisions- alienates people on the fence already skeptical of expanding authority to Syria

SAVAGE 12 Charlie, NYT, Shift on Executive Power Lets Obama Bypass Rivals, 4-22

But those moves were isolated and cut against the administration’s broader political messaging strategy at
AND
imploring colleagues of both parties to push back against his “power grabs.”

Tournament: 2013babyjo | Round: 3 | Opponent: Gonzaga Bauer-Johnson | Judge: Gliniecki
Counter-terrorism experts agree- drones are counterproductive in the long-term. Overreliance on drones comes at the expense of more successful counter-terrorism strategies. 

Brooks 13 Rosa is a Bernard L. Schwartz senior fellow at the New America Foundation, a tenured law professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, From 2009-2011, Brooks served as Counselor to Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Founded DoD’s Office for Rule of Law and International Humanitarian Policy and led a major overhaul of the Defense Departmentand#39;s strategic communication and information operations efforts. In July 2011, she received the Secretary of Defense Medal for Outstanding Public Service,  “The Constitutional and Counterterrorism Implications of Targeted Killing” held by the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights. 4-23

When we come to rely excessively on drone strikes as a counterterrorism tool, this
AND
Iraq war, are we creating terrorists faster than we kill them?64

Better information. The plan spurs the military to collect more information

Taylor 13  Paul is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Policy and Research and an alumnus of Seton Hall Law School and the Whitehead School of Diplomacy and International Relations. Veteran of the Army’s 82nd Airborne Division, with deployments to both Afghanistan and to Iraq, and has worked at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and Global Action to Prevent War. Transparent Policy, http://transparentpolicy.org/2013/03/former-dod-lawyer-frowns-on-drone-court/

Lastly, there is the concern of creating perverse incentives: whether a person’s name
AND
at the past operations and question whether an individual was in fact targeted.

Turn – binary thinking

Dorage 13   Kristin, School for Conflict Analysis and Resolution – George Mason University, Unrest Magazine, 4-13, http://www.unrestmag.com/understanding-the-pro-drone-discourse/

Knowing that the American public is tired of war after the extended invasions in Iraq
AND
American sentiment, nor would their usage play into al-Qaida’s strategy.

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 4 | Opponent: Wayne State Leap-Messina | Judge: Albiniak, Morgan, Paone
Our 1AC begins with a re-telling of the Rehman family’s story, as told by Rania Khalek after she spent time with the family in November
Rania Khalek is an independent journalist living in the Washington, DC “Drone Victims Tell Empty US House Their Story; Is America Listening?” November 1 http://truth-out.org/news/item/19751-drone-strike-victims-tell-their-story-but-is-america-listening

Obama and his lawyers continue to justify the targeted killing of hundreds in the name of counterterrorism. Saying nothing in the face of these murders is a passive endorsement of the status quo. Drone victims want to know Americans are listening- they want us to share their stories and demand an end to targeted killing.
Mohammed Al Qawli, whose brother was killed in a drone strike, wrote in December Mohammed Al Qawli is an educational consultant at the Ministry of Education in Sanaa, Yemen and the former director of the Ministry of Education in Khawlan province. His brother, Ali Al Qawli, was killed in a drone strike in January 2013. Dec 5 2013 “The US killed my brother with a drone. I want to know why” http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2013/12/grieving-yemena-sinnocentdead.html

There is a growing chorus of voices bringing attention to the deaths of civilians by drone strikes- from the reports by Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to the UN special reports. But still, not enough Americans are paying attention. The Rehman family flew 7,000 miles to tell their story at a Congressional hearing and only 5 members of Congress showed up. We need a mobilized community to restrain future use of drones.
Madea Benjamin, founder of CODEPINK in 2013 Medea Benjamin is cofounder of CODEPINK and the human rights organization Global Exchange. She is the author of Drone Warfare: Killing by Remote Control. “Drone Victims Come Out of the Shadows” Nov 5 http://fpif.org/drone-victims-come-shadows/?utm_source=feedburnerandutm_medium=feedandutm_campaign=Feed3A+FPIF+28Foreign+Policy+In+Focus+28All+News2929

Plan
The United States Congress should create a statutory cause of action for damages for those unlawfully injured by targeted killing operations or their heirs that overrides the state secrets and official immunity doctrine and replaces them with carefully considered procedures for balancing the secrecy concerns.

The poorly informed public continues to prop up Obama’s drone policy. Current government justifications enable it to discount alternate media narratives and cast a fog over public debate about drones.
Naiman 11/15 Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Mr. Naiman edits the Just Foreign Policy daily news summary and writes on U.S. foreign policy at Huffington Post. Naiman has worked as a policy analyst and researcher at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch. He has masters degrees in economics and mathematics from the University of Illinois and has studied and worked in the Middle East. “WikiLeaks and the Drone Strike Transparency Bill” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/wikileaks-and-the-drone-s_b_4282595.html

Drone strikes cause thousands of civilian deaths and massive disruptions of daily life.
Stanford Human Rights Clinic 12 “Living Under Drones Death, Injury, and Trauma to Civilians From US Drone Practices in Pakistan” Stanford International Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Clinic (IHRCRC) and Global Justice Clinic (GJC) at NYU School of Law September http://livingunderdrones.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Stanford-NYU-LIVING-UNDER-DRONES.pdf

The plan creates a deterrent effect and overcomes judicial deference and the government’s ability to assert state secret privileges.
Stephen I. Vladeck 13, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Scholarship at American University Washington College of Law, senior editor of the peer-reviewed Journal of National Security Law and Policy, Supreme Court Fellow at the Constitution Project, and fellow at the Center on National Security at Fordham University School of Law, JD from Yale Law School, Feb 27 2013, “DRONES AND THE WAR ON TERROR: WHEN CAN THE U.S.TARGET ALLEGED AMERICAN TERRORISTS OVERSEAS?” Hearing Before the House Committee on the Judiciary, http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Vladeck-02272013.pdf

Lawsuits are a visible platform advocates can use to generate media attention and public conversations. The conversations that result from the aff spillover to broader conversations about constitutional concerns and human rights issues.
Wexler 13 Lesley Wexler Professor of Law and Thomas A. Mengler Faculty Scholar, University of Illinois College of Law “The Role of the Judicial Branch during the Long War: Drone Courts, Damage Suits, and FOIA Requests” May 8 http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2262412

The process of debating about how to relieve the suffering of others can lead to compassion- listening occurs when we attempt to understand others and even indirectly when we read articles and scour for information.
Porter 6 head of the School of International Studies at the University of South Australia, (Elisabeth, "Can politics practice compassion?" Hypatia Sep, p project muse) 

Tort litigation succeeds where traditional rights fail. Tort strategies provide forums for a unique and critical form of confronting biopower through the expression of individual bodily experience.
Bloom 12 *Anne, Professor of Law, the University of the Pacific/McGeorge School of Law. Southwestern Law Review, 41 Sw. L. Rev. 241

Story telling can be a critical strategy in challenging dominant narratives of the world.
Richard Delgado demonstrates Richard Delgado  Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin. J.D. 1974, U.C.-Berkeley School of Law, Michigan Law Review, August, 1989, 87 Mich. L. Rev. 2411, LEGAL STORYTELLING: STORYTELLING FOR OPPOSITIONISTS AND OTHERS: A PLEA FOR NARRATIVE.
Courts become rallying points to debate specific applications of broader issues.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Mobilizing civil society organizations is the most effective way to restrain executive power.
Cole 11 David, Professor, Georgetown University Law Center. Where Liberty Lies: Civil Society and Individual Rights After 9/11 Wayne Law Review, Winter, 57 Wayne L. Rev. 1203, lexis

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 4 | Opponent: Wayne State Leap-Messina | Judge: Albiniak, Morgan, Paone
Mothers in Yemen and Pakistan don’t have the ability to participate in our debates. They are always more excluded than you are.
Adeleke 2, Pf African American Studies, The University of Montana-Missoula,
(Tunde, Globalization And the Challenges of Race-based Pedagogy, http://globalization.icaap.org/content/v2.2/adeleke.html)

That's all well and good, but THEY NEED TO READ SOLVENCY EVIDENCE or provide some type of PROOF that this form of performance/argument PRODUCES the kind of thinking Wilderson wants. We think it is much more likely to produce apathy than hope. We have evidence on this question (that card that ends with "a brown man from hawaii is president... anything is possible... afro pessimism is the product of a particular cultural moment) and THEY DO NOT.
Incognegro, No Date http://www.incognegro.org/afro_pessimism.html

There’s nothing objective about your pessimissim – it’s a particular outgrowth of culture - Their social death claims ignore that blacks are still here and we know it.
Holley 1-18 -13, Eugene Holley Jr, Eugene Holley, Jr. is a journalist, essayist and radio producer. He has been published in a wide variety of publications and websites including Allaboutjazz.com, Amazon.com, Down Beat, Jazziz, JazzTimes, Hispanic, The New York Times Book Review, Vibe, The Village Voice, and Wax Poetics. AlterNet, Wake Up, People! How to Get Past African-American Pessimism in the Age of Obama

Tournament: Ndt | Round: 4 | Opponent: Wayne State Leap-Messina | Judge: Albiniak, Morgan, Paone
K2
The anti-drone movement needs policy help. 2013 has been an important year for the anti-drone movement. Now is a critical time to discuss the policy changes in order to build momentum
Medina 13 Daniel, The Huffington Post, 11-18, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-medina/drone-summit-demands-end-_b_4297581.html

K1

ETHICS must be FEASIBLE on a larger scale and Ethics are easily coopted
Demenchonok 9, Institute of Philosophy of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow,
(Edward, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 68.1 (Jan): p9)

EXPOSURE becomes addictive.  Your aff over-focuses on calling the state out, instead of fighting to relieve suffering
Isaac 2 New School for Social Research, (Jeffrey C., Social Research, Summer, p. EXAC)

Unifying theories distract time and energy from a democratic renaissance – they divide ranks, telling people that their current forms of resistance are a waste of time.
RUDD 5 * JEFFREY, Adjunct Professor of Law, University of Montana; University of Wisconsin-Madison, William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, Spring, 29 Wm. and Mary Envtl. L. and Pol'y Rev. 551

The aff is more than the plan- it is a process of imagining that can challenge racialized patriarchy- using the law can contain the seeds of own critique- abandoning the law is a tool to ignore global inequality.
EISENSTEIN 98, Professor and Chair of Politics at Ithaca College,
(Zillah R., Global Obscenities: Patriarchy, Capitalism, and the Lure of Cyberfantasy, http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?ean=9780814722053anddisplayonly=CHP)

The government is not a unitary experience.  The Obama administration is different from the Bush administration as the Texas legislature is radically different from California.  
LOBEL 7, Assistant Professor of Law, University of San Diego,
(Orly, Harvard Law Review, 120 Harv. L. Rev. 937)

The aff is key to empanty- Exposing ourselves to different modes of understanding is critical to cultivating sympathy for different ways of life
Jenni 1 Kathie, Pf Philosophy at Redlands, Social Theory and Practice, July v27 i3 p437

This reductionism of gender to explain all oppression becomes a tool for domination in the Middle East- it’s already being co-opted to paper over social realities and deny autonomy- turns the K
Amar 11   Paul, Journal of Middle East Women's Studies, Volume 7, Number 3, Fall
Socio-political results are more important than methodological analysis
Strathausen 4 Assoc Pf of German and English Studies, U of Missouri-Columbia, (Carsten, theory @ buffalo 9)

Gendered binaries don’t organize the world- Their method is a flawed mode of analysis because it can’t explain everything
Hooper 1 Charlotte (University of Bristol research associate in politics), Manly States: Masculinities, International Relations, and Gender Politics pp 45-46. 

In-round-politics-FIRST is selfish.  The question should be how to mobilize large groups of people and ensure the left survives.  
Grossberg, 92 Lawrence, “Professor of Communications Studies at the University of North Carolina, We Gotta Get Out of This Place: Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture, 1992 p. 388-390

Tournament: Texas | Round: 2 | Opponent: Emory Jones-Sigalos | Judge: Russell
The United States Congress should create a statutory cause of action for damages for those unlawfully injured by targeted killing operations or their heirs that waives the United States’ sovereign immunity and state secrets privileges and confers exclusive jurisdiction over such suits upon the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. 

The plan overcomes judicial deference and the government’s ability to assert state secret privileges.

Vladeck 14 Stephen Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Scholarship, American University Washington College of Law. “Targeted Killing and Judicial Review” http://www.lawfareblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Vladeck-Response-Piece.pdf
As noted above,70 such review is best provided after the fact
AND
which Congress could otherwise abrogate.85